UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA 

COLLEGE    OF    AGRICULTURE 

AGRICULTURAL    EXPERIMENT   STATION 

BERKELEY,    CALIFORNIA 


COST  OF  PRODUCING  ALMONDS 
IN  CALIFORNIA 

A  PROGRESS  REPORT 

R.  L.  ADAMS 


OFFICE       *  31004 

taxe.s         *     xa&s 


TR£EeARE 


Composite  cost  per  pound  of  producing  almonds 
during  1925,  in  the  areas  surveyed 


BULLETIN  422 

April,  1927 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PRINTING  OFFICE 

BERKELEY,  CALIFORNIA 

1927 


COST  OF   PRODUCING  ALMONDS   IN   CALIFORNIA 
A  PROGRESS   REPORT 

B.  L.  ADAMSi 


INTRODUCTION 

Almond  production  in  California,  though  generally  centering  in  a 
number  of  well-defined  localities,  is  sufficiently  extensive  so  that  41 
of  the  58  counties  of  the  state  are  credited  with  acreage.  In  1925 
twenty-two  counties  each  contained  bearing  almond  orchards  totaling 
250  acres  or  more.  Extensive  plantings  are  located  in  the  vicinity  of 
San  Francisco  Bay — Alameda,  Contra  Costa,  and  Santa  Clara  coun- 
ties; in  Monterey  and  San  Luis  Obispo  counties;  in  the  Sacramento 
Valley,  from  Solano  to  Tehama,  counties,  inclusive ;  in  the  San  Joaquin 
Valley,  especially  in  San  Joaquin,  Stanislaus,  Merced,  and  Tulare 
counties;  and  in  Los  Angeles  and  Riverside  counties,  of  southern 
California. 

The  amount  of  bearing  acreages  and  estimated  production  for  each 
year  since  1918  is  set  forth  in  the  following  table : 


TABLE  1 

Acreages  of  Bearing  Orchards  and  Production  of  Almonds,*  1919-1926 


Production 

Bearing  acreage 

1919 

Tons 
7,250 
5,500 
6,000 
8,500 

11,000 
8,000 
7,500 

14,000 

Acres 
30,100 

1920 

35,044 

1921 

42,564 

1922 

52,876 

1923 

58,472 

1924 

62,313 

1925 

1926 

69,371 
75,311 

*  California  Crop  Reporting  Service,  California  crop  report  1925,  California  State  Dept.  Agr.  Special 
Publication  63;  27,  1926. 

Conversion  of  these  gross  yields  and  acreages  into  yield  per  acre 
in  pounds  illustrates  the  variation  in  production  from  year  to  year — 
from  a  low  of  216  pounds  per  acre  in  1925  to  a  high  of  482  pounds 

i  Professor  of  Farm  Management  and  Agricultural  Economist  in  the  Experi- 
ment Station. 


4  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

per  acre  in  1919.  The  proportion  of  acreage  newly  brought  into  bear- 
ing each  year  (amount  not  known)  has  its  influence,  and  is  a  variable 
which  affects  the  average. 


Pounds  per 

acre 

Pounds  per  acre 

1919 

482 

1923 

376 

1920 

314 

1924 

257 

1921 

282 

1925 

216 

1922 

322 

1926 

372 

In  order  to  find  out  the  facts  having  to  do  with  the  financial  side 
of  the  almond  industry,  a  study  was  undertaken  during  the  season 
of  1925  for  the  purpose  of  collecting,  assembling,  and  analyzing  basic 
data  concerning  the  cost  of  producing  California  almonds.  Such  a 
study  has  a  two-fold  value.  The  data  can  be  of  help  in  connection 
with  matters  of  state  and  federal  policy,  such  as  determining  feasible 
expansion  of  plantings,  framing  tariff  schedules,  and  settling  market- 
ing matters.  The  data  can  be  of  greatest  help,  however,  in  guiding 
the  individual  grower  in  better  organizing  or  administering  his  own 
farm  business.  Cost  data  are  of  little  direct  assistance  in  setting 
market  prices.  Demand  and  supply  determine  market  price,  and  not 
cost  of  production,  except  in  that  continued  high  costs  tend  to  force 
out  marginal  growers  and  as  a  result  ultimately  reduce  supplies.  Cost 
data  are  especially  valuable  for  use  in  determining  whether  or  not 
there  is  need  for  greater  economy,  for  increased  yields,  for  better 
quality.  The  data  stress  the  need  of  suitable  environment,  of  efficient 
size  of  holding,  of  proper  equipment.  Costs  of  production,  taken  in 
connection  with  yields  and  selling  prices,  indicate  possible  net  income, 
and  thereby  provide  a  basis  for  an  ultimate  decision  as  to  whether 
a  given  orchard  should  be  continued,  or  else  replaced  with  a  crop  giv- 
ing promise  of  better  returns.  An  average  cost  for  any  given  season 
is  not  likely  to  be  a  true  criterion  of  costs  for  some  other  season.  This 
is  especially  true  with  products  subject  to  wide  fluctuations  from  one 
year  to  the  next  in  amount  of  production,  quality  of  output,  market 
price,  and  expenditures.  One  should  bear  in  mind,  however,  that 
average  yields  as  indicated  in  table  1  are  uneconomically  low  for  every 
one  of  the  eight  years.  Hence,  the  findings  of  1925  carry  a  lesson  well 
worth  passing  on  to  growers.  They  show,  for  one  thing,  that  the 
almond  industry  cannot  independently  survive  in  its  present  entirety 
unless  yields  are  obtained  which  are  greater  than  the  averages  indi- 
cated in  the  preceding  table,  or  unless  prices  are  obtained  for  almonds 
higher  than  has  been  the  case  during  the  past  eight  or  ten  years.  The 
proof  of  this  statement  is  set  forth  in  the  following  pages. 


Bul.  422] 


COST    OF    PRODUCING    ALMONDS   IN    CALIFORNIA 


The  1925  season  was  a  year  of  low  total  and  low  average  produc- 
tion of  almonds  in  California,  as  shown  in  table  1  and  its  accompany- 
ing discussion.  This  low  output  influenced  costs.  In  some  cases  the 
small  amount  of  the  crop  resulted  in  unusually  high  costs,  not  par- 
ticularly applicable  to  a  series  of  years.  This  fact  should  be  borne 
in  mind  in  connection  with  our  findings  as  to  costs,  because  in  a  year 
of  larger  production,  costs  would  be  reduced  accordingly,  and  the 
industry  would  then  appear  in  a  more  favorable  light. 


LOCALITIES  WHERE  STUDIES  WERE   CONDUCTED 

Orchards  selected  for  study  as  representative  of  typical  com- 
mercially producing  sections  were  located  in  thirteen  areas.  The 
names  and  locations  of  these  districts,  together  with  the  number  of 
completed  records  obtained  in  each  locality  are  set  forth  below : 


Districts 

Counties 

Number  of  usable 
records 

Banning 

Paso  Robles 

Riverside 

15 

12 

14 

Oakdale 

San  Joaquin  and  Stanislaus 

14 

12 

Winters-Esparto-Rumsey 

17 

Arbuckle-College  City 

15 

Orland 

9 

17 

14 

Fair  Oaks-Antelope-Rio  Linda 

Sacramento 

San  Joaquin 

Tulare 

6 

3 

Terra  Bella 

1 

Total— 13  areas. 

149 

BANNING  DISTKICT 

The  principal  commercial  almond-producing  section  of  southern  California 
lies  between  San  Gorgonio  Pass  and  the  desert  in  the  northwestern  part  of 
Eiverside  County.  The  bulk  of  the  plantings  occupy  a  rectangular  area  about 
three  miles  by  four  miles  in  size,  entirely  surrounding  the  town  of  Banning. 
Many  of  the  orchards  are  within  the  town  limits.  A  small  secondary  planting 
(about  half  a  dozen  orchards)  occurs  near  the  settlement  of  Cabazon,  about  six 
miles  east  of  Banning.  Almonds,  peaches,  apricots,  and  prunes  make  up  a  com- 
pact deciduous  fruit  belt,  hemmed  in  by  mountains  on  three  sides  and  by  the 
desert  on  the  fourth.  The  plantings  are  located  on  a  gently  sloping  valley 
floor,  at  an  elevation  of  from  1800  to  2500  feet,  with  a  generally  southern 
exposure. 


6  UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 

The  almond  plantings  occupy  sandy  loam  soil  types  of  the  Placentia,  Hanford, 
and  Ramona  series.2 

Weather  data  are  scanty,  but  rainfall  for  the  years  1920  to  1925,  inclusive, 
averaged  17.67  inches,  and  ranged  from  13.03  inches  to  29.64  inches.  Because 
of  the  proximity  of  the  desert,  the  winter  season  is  short  and  mild,  and  the 
summers  warm,  so  that  early  blooming  and  early  ripening  of  almonds  is  the 
rule.  |    J 

Many  of  the  orchards  are  owned  by  men  who  have  other  interests  in  town, 
such  as  banking,  or  storekeeping,  or  who  are  practicing  medicine  or  dentistry. 


wm&mp^'*~-~^^^~~ 


Fig.  1. — General  view  of  deciduous  fruit  plantings  in  the  Banning  district, 
including  orchards  covered  in  a  study  of  the  cost  of  producing  almonds  in 
this  area. 

All  the  almond  orchards  are  under  irrigation.  The  owners,  with  a  few  minor 
exceptions,  hold  stock  in  a  local  mutual  water  company,  which  collects  water 
from  canyons  by  gravity  flow  and  pumping,  and  runs  the  water  thus  obtained 
several  miles  into  a  series  of  reservoirs.  From  these  it  is  distributed  to  the 
various  users. 

PASO   EOBLES   DISTRICT 


The  Paso  Robles  almond  district  is  made  up  of  a  number  of  non-contiguous 
orchard  plantings,  mostly  situated  within  a  fifteen-mile  radius  of  the  town  of 
Paso  Robles,  in  San  Luis  Obispo  County.  The  Salinas  River,  flowing  near  the 
town,  divides  the  district  into  two  general  parts.  Orchards  in  the  area  east 
of  the  river  are  on  rolling  hills;  those  to  the  west  of  the  river  are  in  several 
small  valleys  and  on  cultivable  hill  land.  None  of  the  orchards  studied  were 
irrigated. 


2  Fully  described  in:  Dunn,  J.  E.,  L.  C.  Holmes,  A.  T.  Strahorn,  and  J.  E. 
Guernsey.  Reconnoissance  soil  survey  of  the  central  southern  area,  California. 
U.  S.  D.  A.  Field  Operations  of  the  Bureau  of  Soils  1917:2405-2534.     1923. 


Bul.  422] 


COST   OF   PRODUCING   ALMONDS   IN    CALIFORNIA 


Orchards  studied  along  the  Adelaida  Boad  and  Peachey  Canyon  districts  are 
largely  on  soils  of  the  Kettleman  series — loan,  stony  loam,  and  clay  loam,  with 
areas  of  Altamont  clay  loam,  and  of  Santa  Lucia  series  (gravelly  clay  loam)  in 
the  Adelaida  Eoad  District.  The  orchards  of  the  El  Pomar  Koad  District  are 
on  soils  of  the  Docas  series — loam  and  gravelly  loam,  with  a  small  area  of 
Montezuma  clay  loam.3 

Orchards  studied  in  the  area  east  of  Paso  Kobles  range  in  elevation  from 
740  to  1040  feet;  orchards  west  of  Paso  Kobles  are  on  land  ranging  from  933  to 
1500  feet.  The  topography,  as  already  indicated,  varies  from  rolling  hills  to 
rugged  mountains. 


r 


Fig.  2, 


-Typical  almond  orchards  on  the  rolling  lands  of  the 
Paso  Robles  district. 


The  amounjb.  of  rainfall  varies  within  the  district,  being  apparently  heavier 
on  the  west  side.  Reports  of  th.e  Weather  Bureau  of  the  United  States  Depart- 
ment of  Agriculture  indicate  an  average  annual  rainfall  at  Paso  Robles,  for 
the  years  1914-1923,  inclusive,  of  17.40  inches,  ranging  from  29.89  inches  in 
1916  to  7.99  inches  in  1923. 

Killing  frosts  may  be  expected  until  the  last  of  May.  The  first  killing  frost 
in  fall,  measured  at  Paso  Robles,  usually  occurs  in  October.  A  period  of  from 
4  to  5  months '  duration  is  thus  free  from  frost.  Occasional  temperatures  as 
high  as  107°  to  115°  F  are  recorded  for  July  and  August,  and  as  low  as  11° 
to  22°  F  for  winter  months. 


OAKLEY  DISTRICT 

The  almond  orchards  of  the  Oakley  district  lie  in  an  elliptical  area,  about 
5%  miles  long  by  3  miles  wide,  lying  generally  southeast,  south,  and  west  of 
the  town  of  Oakley,  in  eastern  Contra  Costa  County.     The  district  is  roughly 


3  A  special  study  and  classification  of  the  soils  on  the  dozen  orchards  for 
which  cost  data  were  collected  was  made  in  June,  1926,  by  C.  F.  Shaw,  Pro- 
fessor of  Soil  Technology,  University  of  California,  since  no  published  or 
reference  material  was  available. 


8  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

bounded  by  the  towns  of  Antioch  on  the  west,  Brentwood  on  the  south,  Knightsen 
on  the  southeast,  and  the  San  Joaquin  Eiver  on  the  north. 

The  majority  of  the  almond  plantings  are  on  soil  classified  as  Oakley  sand. 
There  is  a  small  area  of  Antioch  loam  and  clay  loam  near  Antioch.* 

The  orchards  lie  at  elevations  ranging  from  25  to  100  feet  above  sea  level. 
The  topography  is  gently  rolling,  with  a  general  northern  exposure,  and  a 
4-per-cent  slope. 

Forty-five  years  of  government  records  taken  at  Antioch  (fairly  applicable 
to  the  Oakley  district)  indicate  an  average  annual  rainfall  of  12.74  inches, 
ranging,  during  the  past  ten  years,  from  16.32  inches  in  1922  to  5.46  inches  in 
1917.  The  district  has  a  long  growing  season,  the  last  killing  frost  in  spring 
usually  occurring  before  the  middle  of  February,  and  the  first  in  fall  about 
the  middle  of  November.  The  climate  of  the  district  is  a  blending  of  the 
climates  of  the  warm  interior  valley  and  the  cool  coast.  The  proximity  of  the 
San  Joaquin  Eiver — a  route  for  ocean  breezes — has  its  influence  on  the  tem- 
perature. Summer-temperature  maximums  range  from  104°  to  109°  F,  and 
winter-temperature  minimums  from  24°  to  30°  F. 

Irrigation  of  orchards  is  gradually  gaining  headway,  and  installation  of 
pumping  plants  during  the  past  three  or  four  years  is  bringing  about  a  change 
from  the  strictly  dry  farming  methods  generally  practiced  previously. 


OAKDALE  DISTEICT 

The  Oakdale  district  comprises  two  distinct  almond-growing  areas  in  San 
Joaquin  and  Stanislaus  counties:  one  a  long,  narrow  strip  contiguous  to  the 
town  of  Oakdale,  extending  for  a  distance  of  about  2  miles  up  and  about  1^ 
miles  down  the  Stanislaus  Eiver;  the  other,  a  triangular  area  lying  between 
the  towns  of  Escalon,  Manteca,  and  Eipon,  in  San  Joaquin  County. 

The  plantings  in  the  vicinity  of  Oakdale  are  on  Oakdale  sandy  loam  and 
on  Hanford  loam.  Most  of  the  orchards  in  the  vicinity  of  Escalon,  Manteca, 
and  Eipon  are  found  on  soils  classified  as  Oakley  and  Fresno  sands.5 

Orchards  located  above  Oakdale  are  on  rolling  land;  orchards  below  Oakdale, 
and  in  the  Manteca-Eipon-Escalon  triangle,  are  on  level  land.  The  elevation  of 
orchards  near  Oakdale  varies  from  138  to  243  feet.  Orchards  in  the  vicinity  of 
Escalon  are  at  elevations  of  from  113  to  120  feet,  and  those  near  Manteca  and 
Eipon  at  from  45  to  52  feet.  No  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture 
climatic  records  are  available  for  this  district,  the  nearest  station  being  at 
Merced,  data  of  which  is  given  in  the  description  of  the  Modesto-Atwater- 
Livingston  district. 

Most  of  the  almond  orchards  in .  this  district  are  located  in  either  the 
Oakdale  Irrigation  District  or  in  the  South  San  Joaquin  Irrigation  District. 
Though  water  was  available,  many  orchardists  did  not  irrigate  in  1925,  in 
some  instances  because  of  crop  failure,  and  occasionally  because  of  a  high 
water  table. 


4  Fully  described  in:  Nelson,  J.  W.,  J.  E.  Guernsey,  L.  C.  Holmes,  and  E.  C. 
Eckmann.  Eeconnoissance  soil  survey  of  the  lower  San  Joaquin  Valley,  Cali- 
fornia. U.  S.  D.  A.  Field  Operations  of  the  Bureau  of  Soils  1915:2583-2733. 
1918. 

s  See  footnote  4. 


BuL.  422]  C0ST   0F   PRODUCING   ALMONDS   IN    CALIFORNIA 


MODESTO-ATWATER-LIVINGSTON  DISTRICT 

The  principal  almond  growing  section  in  the  San  Joaquin  Valley,  other 
than  the  Oakdale  district,  is  located  on  the  valley  floor,  in  a  rough  triangle 
formed  by  the  towns  of  Atwater,  Livingston,  and  Winton,  plus  a  few  scattering 
orchards  near  Modesto. 

Almond  orchards  in  this  district  are  planted  on  three  soil  types,  classified 
as  (1)  Oakley  and  Fresno  sands,  (2)  Oakley  and  Madera  sands,  and  (3)  Fresno 
and  Madera  sandy  loams.6 

Measured  at  Merced,  the  average  yearly  rainfall  for  the  period  between 
1916  and  1925  was  11.86  inches,  ranging  from  18.42  inches  to  5.33  inches.  The 
first  fall  frost  usually  occurs  after  November  1st,  and  the  last  in  spring  about 
March  20th.  Summer  temperatures  recorded  for  the  past  ten  years  ranged 
from  105°  to  110°  F  (usually  in  July),  and  winter  temperatures  from  19°  to 
25°  F  (usually  in  January). 

All  orchards  studied  could  be  irrigated  either  from  an  irrigation  district  or 
from  private  pumping  plants. 


WINTEES-ESPARTO-RUMSEY  DISTRICT 

The  Winters-Esparto-Rumsey  almond  district,  one  of  the  oldest  in  the 
state,  is  made  up  of  two  areas.  One  area  comprises  almond  orchards  located 
on  an  alluvial  fan  spreading  out  from  the  foothills  at  elevations  of  from  125 
to  133  feet,  contiguous  to  and  along  both  sides  of  Putah  Creek,  below  the  town 
of  Winters.  This  area  is  about  4  miles  long  and  about  2  miles  wide.  The 
second  area  is  located  along  Cache  Creek,  between  the  towns  of  Esparto  and 
Rumsey,  in  a  narrow  valley  from  2  to  5  miles  wide  and  about  22  miles  long. 
Orchards  in  this  area  are  at  elevations  of  from  180  to  220  feet.  The  Winters 
area  and  the  Esparto-Rumsey  area  are  about  10  miles  apart.  The  topography 
of  all  orchards  is  level  and  unbroken,  except  when  cut  by  creek  channels  and 
a  few  old  washes.  Most  of  these  orchards  are  on  Yolo  loam  soils,7  laid  down 
by  Putah  or  Cache  Creeks. 

Climatological  records  of  the  Weather  Bureau  of  the  United  States  Depart- 
ment of  Agriculture  are  not  available  for  this  district,  but  records  taken  at 
Davis,  nine  miles  away,  indicate  an  average  annual  rainfall  of  14.94  inches 
for  the  years  1916  to  1925,  inclusive.  The  annual  amount  of  rainfall  is  variable, 
and  in  ten  years  ranged  from  a  high  22.63  inches  to  a  low  of  but  7.8  inches. 
The  Davis  records  indicate  a  growing  season  generally  free  from  killing  frosts 
extending  from  March  until  November  (although  killing  frosts  do  occasionally 
occur  in  April).  Winter-minimum  temperatures  for  Davis  are  reported  as  low 
as  19°  or  20°  F  and  summer-maximum  temperatures  as  high  as  100°  to  112°  F. 

Because  of  its  geographical  location,  it  is  probable  that  the  rainfall  in  the 
Winters-Esparto-Rumsey  district  is  greater  than  in  Davis,  and  there  is  evidence 
to  show  that  the  district  is  somewhat  freer  from  killing  frosts. 

Reliance  upon  rainfall  for  sufficient  moisture  is  the  rule,  most  orchards  not 
being  equipped  to  irrigate.  Irrigation,  when  given,  is  usually  limited  to  a 
single  application. 

e See  footnote  4. 

7  Fully  described  in:  Holmes,  L.  C,  J.  W.  Nelson,  and  Party.  Reconnois- 
sance  soil  survey  of  the  Sacramento  Valley,  California.  U.  S.  D.  A.  Field 
Operations  of  the  Bureau  of  Soils  1913:2297-2439.     1915. 


10 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


ARBUCKLE-COLLEGE  CITY  DISTRICT 

The  Arbuckle-College  City  district  is  situated  in  Colusa  County,  on  a  broad 
sloping  plain  which  rises  in  a  westerly  direction  from  the  Sacramento  River 
to  the  foothills.  The  almond  plantings  are  in  two  areas.  One  compact  area 
lies  chiefly  to  the  west  and  south  of  the  town  of  Arbuckle.  The  other,  well 
developed  though  less  extensive,  is  located  near  College  City. 

The  orchards  range  in  elevation  from  50  to  75  feet  at  College  City,  and  from 
100  to  200  feet  at  Arbuckle.  Some  of  the  orchards  near  Arbuckle  are  planted 
on  slightly  rolling  land,  but  the  majority  of  the  plantings  are  on  land  which 
is  practically  level,  as  are  those  in  the  vicinity  of  College  City. 

The  soil  is  classified  as  Tehama  loam  soil.8 


Fig.  3. — Typical  almond  orchards  of  Sacramento  Valley  showing 
topography,  spacing,  and  soil  care. 

Consecutive  climatological  data  of  the  United  States  Department  of  Agri- 
culture are  available  for  this  area  for  only  the  six  years  from  1920  to  1925. 
Previous  records  are  scattering.  During  these  six  years,  the  annual  rainfall 
averaged  13.96  inches.  The  highest  yearly  average  occurred  in  1918,  and 
amounted  to  18.09  inches;  the  lowest  was  7.68  inches,  in  1923.  United  States 
Department  of  Agriculture  weather  records  of  killing  frosts  indicate  a  grow- 
ing season  usually  from  March  (and  occasionally  from  January  or  February) 
until  early  in  November.  Temperatures  are  typical  of  the  central  Sacramento 
Valley.  Summer  maximums  range  from  106°  to  112°  F  and  winter  minimums 
from  19°  to  25°  F. 

THE  ORLAND  DISTRICT 


The  almond-growing  section  designated  as  the  Orland  district  is  in  Glenn 
County,  on  the  west  side  of  the  Sacramento  Valley  near  the  town  of  Orland. 
Plantings  are  rather  widely  scattered  and  are  found  in  conjunction  with  citrus, 


s  See  footnote  7. 


BUK  422]  C0ST   0F   PRODUCING   ALMONDS   IN    CALIFORNIA  11 

olives,  apricots,  peaches,  grapes,  alfalfa,  and  grain.  The  principal  almond 
plantings  lie  in  an  area  east  and  south  of  Orland,  from  two  to  nine  miles 
of  the  town. 

Almond  orchards  in  this  district  are  on  soils  of  both  Tehama  and  Elder 
series.9  They  are  situated  on  the  level  valley  floor  at  elevations  of  from 
225  to  275  feet. 

Eainfall  records  for  Orland  for  the  ten-year  period  from  1916  to  1925  (as 
compiled  by  the  Weather  Bureau  of  the  United  States  Department  of  Agri- 
culture) indicate  an  average  annual  rainfall  of  14.91  inches,  ranging  from  19.67 
inches  to  8.28  inches.  The  growing  season,  as  measured  by  killing  frosts, 
extends  from  about  the  middle  of  April  until  well  into  November.  Summer- 
maximum  temperatures  range  from  110°  to  114°  F  and  winter  minimums  from 
19°  to  25°  F. 

CHICO-DURHAM-HAMTLTON  CITY  DISTRICT 

The  Chico-Durham-Hamilton  City  almond-growing  district  is  situated  in 
Butte  County,  in  the  vicinity  of  the  towns  of  Chico  and  Durham,  and  in  Glenn 
County  near  Hamilton  City.  The  orchard  belt  between  Chico  and  Durham  is 
approximately  9  miles  long  by  5  miles  wide;  at  Hamilton  City  almond  plantings 
total  only  about  500  acres.  In  both  areas  almonds  are  grown  in  conjunction 
with  prunes,  peaches,  and  other  fruits. 

Orchards  in  the  vicinity  of  Chico  and  Durham  are  chiefly  on  soils  of  the 
Vina  series,10  orchards  to  the  north  and  west  of  Chico  being  on  Vina  fine 
sandy  loam,  and  orchards  near  Durham  being  on  Vina  clay  loam.  Orchards  at 
Hamilton  City  are  on  Elder  silt  loam.n 

Orchards  of  this  district  are  on  level  land  of  the  Sacramento  Valley  floor, 
at  elevations  of  from  150  feet  at  Durham  and  Hamilton  City  to  225  feet 
near  Chico. 

Data  compiled  by  the  Weather  Bureau  of  the  United  States  Department  of 
Agriculture  for  the  years  1916  to  1925,  inclusive,  show  that  the  average  annual 
rainfall  was  23.23  inches,  measured  at  Chico.  The  yearly  rainfall  during  this 
period  varied  from  31.47  inches  to  15.08.  The  growing  season  extends  from 
the  last  of  April  or  earlier  until  first  killing  frosts  in  October  or  November. 
Temperatures  range  from  summer  maximums  of  from  109°  to  113°  F  to  winter 
minimums  of  from  18°  to  25°  F  (in  December  or  January). 


YUBA  CITY-LIVE  OAK-PENNINGTON  DISTRICT 

Almond  orchards  of  the  Yuba  City-Live  Oak-Pennington  district  are  scattered 
rather  widely  over  an  irregular  area,  extending  from  Yuba  City  northward 
through  Live  Oak  to  Gridley,  thence  southwest  to  Pennington  and  around  the 
east  side  of  the  Marysville  Buttes  to  Yuba  City,  the  area  being  about  12  miles 
long  and  from  2  miles  to  6  miles  wide,  almond  orchards  being  found  in  con- 
junction with  peaches,  grapes,  and  other  fruits. 


9  See  footnote  7. 

i°  Some  of  the  soils  classed  with  the  Vina  series  in  the  reconnoissance  soil 
survey  were  classed  as  the  Farwell  series  in  the  detailed  soil  survey  made 
later.  Watson,  E.  B.,  and  R.  E.  Storey.  Soil  survey  of  the  Chico  area. 
(Unpublished.) 

ii  See  footnote  7. 


12  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Almond  orchards  in  the  vicinity  of  Yuba  City,  Live  Oak,  and  Gridley,  are 
on  soils  of  the  Madera  and  Gridley  loams.  Almond  orchards  in  the  vicinity 
of  Pennington  are  on  soil  of  the  Sutter  loam  soils.12 

Orchards  in  this  area  are  on  the  level  valley  floor  and  range  in  elevation 
from  58  feet  (at  Yuba  City)  to  75  feet  (at  Live  Oak  and  Pennington)  to  92 
feet  (at  Gridley). 

Data  compiled  by  the  Weather  Bureau  of  the  United  States  Department  of 
Agriculture  at  Marysville  for  the  years  1916-1925,  inclusive,  and  fairly  appli- 
cable to  this  district,  indicate  an  average  annual  rainfall  of  18.75  inches.  The 
highest  yearly  rainfall  during  the  decade  was  25.99  inches,  the  lowest  10.85 
inches.  The  length  of  the  growing  season,  as  measured  by  killing  frosts, 
extends  from  March  or  April  until  November.  Temperatures  range  from 
occasional  maximums  of  from  106°  to  115°  F  in  July,  to  occasional  minimums 
of  from  24°  to  29°  F  in  December  or  January. 

Some  irrigation  was  practiced,  although  a  majority  of  the  orchardists 
depended  entirely  on  rainfall. 


MISCELLANEOUS   GKOUP 

The  miscellaneous  group  contains  data  concerning  10  scattering  orchards, 
two  of  these  being  near  Fair  Oaks,  three  near  Antelope,  and  one  near  Eio  Linda 
(all  these  six  being  in  Sacramento  County);  three  near  Lodi,  in  San  Joaquin 
County;  and  one  near  Terra  Bella,  in  Tulare  County. 

Sacramento  County. — The  half-dozen  orchards  studied  in  Sacramento  County 
are  from  the  eastern  and  northeastern  parts  of  the  county  where  almonds  are 
grown  rather  extensively,  although  production  and  acreage  both  appear  to  be 
declining.  In  the  vicinity  of  Fair  Oaks  almonds  are  grown  in  a  rather  compact 
belt.  At  Antelope,  the  orchards  are  in  conjunction  with  plantings  of  other 
fruits,  vineyards  and  grain  fields. 

These  almond  orchards  are  planted  on  San  Joaquin  and  Arnold  loams.13 
They  are  situated  on  low  rolling  hills,  at  elevations  of  from  125  to  200  feet. 

Weather  records  taken  at  Sacramento,  but  fairly  applicable  to  this  area, 
indicate  an  average  annual  rainfall  of  13.77  inches  for  the  ten-year  period, 
1916  to  1925.  The  highest  yearly  precipitation  during  this  period  was  18.33 
inches,  the  lowest  8.46  inches.  The  growing  season  extends  from  the  end  of 
March  to  November.  The  climate  is  typical  of  that  found  throughout  the 
Sacramento  Valley,  summer-maximum  temperatures  being  as  high  as  from  105° 
to  114°  F  (in  July  or  August),  and  winter  minimums  from  21°  to  30°  F 
(in  December  or  January). 

San  Joaquin  County. — Three  almond  orchards  from  the  vicinity  of  Lodi 
were  studied.  All  were  situated  on  light  sandy  soil.  The  rainfall,  according 
to  Lodi  records,  averaged  13.8  inches  annually  for  the  years  1916  to  1925, 
ranging  from  a  high  of  19.74  inches  to  a  low  of  7.0  inches.  The  last  killing 
frost  in  spring  usually  occurs  in  February  or  during  the  first  few  days  of 
March.  The  first  in  the  fall  usually  occurs  in  November  or  December.  Tem- 
perature records  for  the  past  ten  years  show  occasional  summer  maximums  of 
from  102°  to  108°  F  and  occasional  winter  minimums  of  from  22°  to  28°  F. 


12  See  footnote  7.         13  See  footnote  7. 


BlTL.  422]  CosT   OF   PRODUCING   ALMONDS   IN    CALIFORNIA  13 

Tulare  County. — Although  a  number  of  orchards  were  scheduled  for  study  in 
the  Terra  Bella  district,  crop  failure  or  lack  of  basic  data  finally  narrowed  the 
number  to  a  single  usable  record!  There  is  a  considerable  acreage  planted  to 
almonds  in  this  district,  but  most  of  the  trees  are  young  and  not  as  yet  in  full 
bearing.  The  orchard  studied  is  on  gently  rolling  topography,  on  heavy  Porter- 
ville  clay  adobe,14  in  a  district  having  an  average  rainfall  (for  1916-1925) 
of  9.86  inches,  with  a  range  of  from  5.06  inches  to  16.51  inches,  and  a  growing 
season  free  from  frosts  usually  from  March  or  early  April  to  October  or  early 
November,  with  occasional  summer-maximum  temperatures  of  from  107°  to 
114°  F  and  occasional  winter  temperatures  of  from  22°  to  27°  F. 


HOW  ORCHARDS  FOR  STUDY  WERE  SELECTED 

Orchards  chosen  for  study  were  sufficiently  numerous  and  typical 
so  that  the  resulting  group  represents  a  cross-section  of  the  almond 
industry  in  each  area.  The  size  of  the  majority  of  almond  orchards  in 
California  ranges  from  10  to  40  acres  in  area,  and  averages  less  than 
20  acres  in  extent.  Most  California  almond  orchards  contain  several 
varieties  of  almonds,  the  more  common  varieties  being  Nonpareil, 
Drake,  I.X.L.,  Ne  Plus  Ultra,  and  Texas.  The  majority  of  bearing 
orchards  are  from  7  to  20  years  of  age,  the  percentages,  according  to 
the  records  of  the  California  Almond  Growers  Exchange,  being: 

Orchards  under  7  years,  12  per  cent. 

Orchards     7  to  12  years,  42  per  cent. 

Orchards  12  to  20  years,  3.1  per  cent. 

Orchards  20  years  or  over,  15  per  cent. 

These  facts  were  borne  in  mind  when  selecting  orchards  for  study. 
The  orchards  selected  were  of  bearing  age,  standard  varieties,  and 
usual  size,  and  only  orchards  were  included  which  had  received 
ordinary  care,  and  had  been  grown  and  handled  as  commercial 
enterprises. 

STUDY  CONFINED  TO  ALMONDS 

Since  this  was  a  study  of  the  cost  of  producing  almonds,  no  attempt 
was  made  to  collect  data  for  other  phases  of  the  farm  business.  If  the 
orchard  consisted  of  fruits  other  than  almonds,  such  were  ignored,  as 
were  other  farm  activities  such  as  field  crops,  dairying,  hog  raising,  or 
similar  departments  not  necessarily  a  part  of  the  almond  business, 
although  often  well  worth  while  as  a  means  of  properly  organizing 
the  farm  business,  or  as  a  means  of  augmenting  farm  incomes.  When 
a  farm  under  study  possessed  additional  activities  requiring  expendi- 
tures, care  was  used  to  prorate  charges  in  order  to  present  all  facts 
pertinent  to  the  almond  oi  chard  only. 

14  Fully  described  in:  Nelson,  J.  W.,  W.  C.  Dean,  and  E.  C.  Eckmann. 
Reconnoissance  soil  survey  of  the  upper  San  Joaquin  Valley,  California. 
U.  S.  D.  A.  Field  Operations  of  the  Bureau  of  Soils  1917:2535-2644.     1923. 


14  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


SUMMARY  OF  FINDINGS 

From  a  study  of  the  cost  of  producing  almonds  on  the  4,577.39 
acres  of  bearing  orchards  in  these  149  orchards,  producing  a  total 
crop  in  1925  of  1,911,488  pounds  of  almonds,  the  average  cost  was 
found  to  be  11.15  cents  a  pound.  This  was  based  on  an  average  pro- 
duction for  these  orchards  in  1925  of  418  pounds  of  almonds  per  acre. 


ITEMS    COMPRISING    COSTS 

A  complete  record  of  costs  of  producing  almonds  from  fully 
developed  orchards  is  made  up  of  a  number  of  items,  each  of  which 
must  be  accurately  determined,  and  all  of  which  for  convenience  may 
be  grouped  into  several  classes,  thus : 

Soil  work 

Tree  care 

Harvesting,  hulling,  delivering 

Office  expense 

Taxes 

Use  of  equipment 

Management 

Depreciation  of  trees 

Interest  upon  operating  funds. 

Materials  were  not  carried  as  separate  items.  Spray  materials 
were  included  under  tree  care,  while  harvest  materials,  such  as  sacks, 
were  included  under  harvesting  costs. 

Insurance  was  carried  only  in  connection  with  buildings,  auto- 
mobiles, and  in  a  few  instances  on  farm  implements.  The  charge  was 
carried  to  the  respective  accounts. 


SOIL  WORK 

Expenditures  for  soil  work  consist  of  those  for  (1)  man  labor, 
(2)  use  of  horses,  (3)  use  of  tractors,  (4)  use  of  implements,  (5) 
irrigation. 

Soil  work  on  63  orchards  was  handled  exclusively  by  horses,  on 
11  orchards  exclusively  by  tractors,  and  on  62  orchards  by  a  com- 
bination of  tractors  and  horses.  The  other  orchards  were  left  uncul- 
tivated. Horses  were  hired  to  work  17  orchards,  tractors  for  3,  and 
both  tractors  and  horses  for  16  orchards — a  total  of  36  orchards. 


BuLu  422]  C0ST    0P   PRODUCING    ALMONDS   IN    CALIFORNIA  15 

Man  Labor. — Man-labor  costs  were  found  by  determining  the  num- 
ber of  hours  of  actual  work  spent  in  plowing,  disking,  cultivating, 
harrowing,  and  similar  operations,  in  irrigating,  hoeing,  and  weeding, 
multiplied  by  the  current  rate  of  wages  generally  paid  for  these 
different  tasks,  including  the  value  of  board,  lodging,  or  other 
perquisites. 

In  this  study  no  distinction  was  made  as  to  whether  the  various 
tasks  were  performed  by  the  operator,  his  family,  or  by  paid  labor. 
All  labor  was  charged  for  at  rates  commensurate  with  the  kind  of 
work  done.15 

Use  of  Horses. — When  horses  were  utilized  in  connection  with  the 
handling  of  the  almond  orchard,  a  careful  estimate  of  the  cost  of 
maintaining  work  horses  was  made  a  part  of  the  study.  If  horses 
were  hired,  actual  expenditures  were  included.  If  the  horses  were 
owned  by  the  almond  producer,  a  careful  calculation  of  the  cost  of 
horse  labor  was  made,  taking  into  account  total  use  of  horses ;  amount 
used  for  almonds ;  cost  of  feed,  chores,  taxes,  insurance,  shoeing, 
veterinary;  depreciation;  mortality;  charge  for  shelter  (made  up  of 
interest,  depreciation,  upkeep,  taxes,  and  insurance)  for  the  portion 
used  in  protecting  horses,  harness,  and  feed ;  charge  for  barn  equip- 
ment, such  as  brooms,  forks,  curry  combs,  brushes,  and  halters,  the 
charge  being  made  up  of  interest,  depreciation,  upkeep,  taxes  and 
insurance.  Any  credits  for  net  value  of  colts  raised  and  for  manure 
produced  were  deducted.10  The  annual  charge  for  work  horses  was 
first  determined,  then  the  daily  rate  for  all  work  done  by  the  teams, 
and  finally  the  proper  proportion  was  allocated  to  the  almond  orchard 
in  accordance  with  the  number  of  days  that  the  horses  were  used. 

This  study  covered  the  use  of  161  horses  employed  for  a  total  of 
68,240  hours  in  these  almond  orchards,  at  an  average  cost  per  horse  of 
$1.18  for  each  workday.  Costs  varied  from  45  cents  to  $2.82  a  horse 
for  each  workday,  the  cost  being  largely  determined  by  the  amount 
of  profitable  use  of  work  horses  during  the  year.     The  majority  of 

is  Manual-labor  costs  prevailing  during  the  1925  season  were,  without  board, 
as  follows: 

Cents  per 
hour 

Teamsters 35-55 

Tree  work 30-50 

Irrigating    30-35 

Harvest — 

Men    30-45 

Women    25-40 

16  For  a  full  discussion  of  the  method  of  calculating  costs  of  horse  labor, 
see  Adams,  E.  L.  Cost  of  work  horses  on  California  farms.  California  Agr. 
Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  401:1-20.     1926. 


16  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

horses  (nearly  70  per  cent)  cost  from  45  cents  to  $1.25  for  each  work- 
day. Horses  employed  but  a  few  days  a  year  resulted  in  a  high  cost 
per  workday;  horses  used  generally  throughout  the  year  were  main- 
tained at  a  low  cost  per  workday.  The  total  yearly  cost  per  head 
did  not  vary  very  much. 

The  following  data  indicate  the  amount  of  horse  labor  used  in  soil 
care  when  horses  alone  were  used. 

Number  of  records  - 17 

Acres  worked  612 

Number  of  horse-days  2,622 

Average  number  of  horse-days  per  acre  4.3 

Use  of  Tractors. — When  motive  power  was  supplied  by  tractors, 
detailed  cost  calculation  was  made  in  a  way  similar  to  that  described 
under  "Use  of  Horses,"  taking  into  account  interest  upon  average 
investment  during  the  total  life  of  the  tractor,  depreciation,  fuel,  oil, 
waste,  grease,  repairs — including  parts  and  labor,  taxes,  and  a  charge 
for  shelter. 

The  amount  chargeable  to  the  almond  orchards  was  determined  by 
calculating  the  annual  cost  of  running  each  tractor,  the  total  number 
of  hours  in  use,  and  the  cost  per  hour  of  use;  the  number  of  hours 
used  for  the  almond  orchards  was  then  multiplied  by  the  rate  thus 
obtained. 

Forty-eight  tractors  of  various  sizes  and  makes,  used  a  total  of 
15,891  hours  in  these  almond  orchards,  cost  on  an  average,  for  all 
makes,  69.5  cents  (simple  average)  per  hour  of  running  time. 

The  following  data  indicate  the  amount  of  use  made  of  tractors 
when  tractors  were  used  exclusively  for  soil  work : 

Number  of  records  9 

Acreage    393.5 

Total  tractor-horsepower  hours  (engine  rating  X  hours) 66,320 

Average  number  tractor-horsepower  hours  161 

Use  of  Implements. — The  charge  for  use  of  farm  implements 
(plows,  harrows,  disks,  wagons,  and  similar  farm  equipment)  is  made 
up  of  interest  on  average  investment,  depreciation,  taxes,  insurance, 
upkeep,  and  a  charge  to  cover  the  use  of  shelter.  These  items  were 
figured  individually  and  a  proper  charge,  based  on  amount  of  use, 
was  carried  against  the  almond  orchard. 

A  charge  was  likewise  determined  for  the  use  of  special  equipment 
required  for  the  almond  orchard,  such  as  buildings,  hullers,  lug  boxes, 
canvas  sheets,  trays,  spray  rigs,  harvesting  sleds.     Whenever  a  build- 


BUL.  422]  CoST   OF   PRODUCING   ALMONDS   IN    CALIFORNIA  17 

ing  was  utilized  in  part  by  other  departments  of  the  farm  business, 
proper  credit  was  given  and  the  just  proportion  only  charged  to 
almonds.  The  total  charge  appears  in  the  various  tables  as  a  single 
item — "use  of  equipment." 

Irrigation. — If  water  was  purchased,  the  actual  sums  paid  were 
recorded,  including  irrigation  district  and  drainage  taxes.17 

In  the  Banning  District,  the  cost  of  irrigation  water  purchased 
from  a  mutual  water  company  amounted  to  $10.50  per  acre  in  1925, 
this  rate  including  an  extra  $2  for  the  year  1925  to  cover  expenditures 
made  to  improve  the  system. 

In  addition  to  county  taxes,  13  of  the  14  orchards  located  in  the 
Oakdale  and  South  San  Joaquin  Irrigation  Districts  paid  an  irriga- 
tion tax.  Reduced  to  an  acre  basis,  the  charge  in  the  Oakdale  Irriga- 
tion District  ranged  from  $2.50  to  $3.60,  and  averaged  $3.25  per  acre ; 
and  in  the  South  San  Joaquin  Irrigation  District  the  charge  ranged 
from  $5.40  to  $7.20,  and  averaged  $6.25.  These  taxes  were  collectable 
regardless  of  whether  or  not  the  water  was  used.  The  cost  of  irrigat- 
ing orchards  in  the  Orland  Irrigation  District  and  in  the  Loam  Ridge 
Mutual  Water  Company  contained  a  district  tax  of  $5.25  per  acre. 

When  water  was  obtained  from  a  pumping  plant  on  the  property, 
the  cost  was  calculated  on  the  yearly  use  of  the  plant  with  proper 
proportion  charged  to  the  almond  orchard  on  the  basis  of  use.  The 
cost  was  figured  separately  for  motors,  engines,  pumps,  wells,  shelters, 
and  irrigating  equipment  (such  as  slip  joint  pipe),  to  include  fuel  or 
power ;  oil,  waste,  grease,  and  other  supplies ;  attendance ;  upkeep ; 
taxes ;  insurance  ;  depreciation ;  and  interest. 

In  order  to  have  a  complete  record  of  the  cost  of  applying  water, 
for  use  in  determining  the  economy  and  feasibility  of  farm-pumped 
versus  purchased  water,  and  to  note  the  crop  increase  necessary  to 
justify  the  installing  and  operating  of  pumps,  labor  required  in  the 
field  for  handling  and  applying  the  irrigation  water  was  included 
with  the  cost  of  irrigation  water,  this  cost  including  the  value  of  the 
operator's  time,  the  use  of  horses  or  tractors,  and  any  charges  which 
rightly  belong  with  the  application  of  water. 

Orchards  studied  in  the  Modesto-Livingston-Atwater  district  were 
all  in  the  Modesto  Irrigation  District,  and  paid  for  water  at  the  rate 
of  from  $1.25  to  $11.87  per  acre ;  the  average  cost  being  $5.85. 

No  irrigation  was  practiced  in  the  Antelope  section,  although  one 
orchard  (No.  4)  paid  a  $10  per  acre  tax  on  account  of  being  in  an 
irrigation  district. 


17  Irrigation  district  taxes,  in  one  instance,  included  drainage  costs  also. 


18 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Complete  cost  data  covering  a  total  of  19  pumping  plants  were 
collected.    A  summary  of  selected  details  shows : 


TABLE  2 
Cost  Data  :  19  Pumping  Plants,  1925 


Number  of  pumping  plants 

Investment 

Total  annual  cost  of  operating 

Amount  chargeable  to  almonds 

Number  of  acres  of  almonds  covered 

Average  cost  per  acre 

Annual  charge  for  labor  applying  water ... 
Average  cost  of  labor  per  acre  (533  acres). 
Total  per  acre  (water  and  labor) 


Summary  of  all 


141,460.40 

$8,541.62 

$5,126.95 

533 

$3,281.75 


Average  of  each 


$2,182.12 

$449.56 

$269.83 

28.05 

$9.62 

$172.72 

$6.16 

$15.78 


TREE  CAEE 

Expenditure  for  tree  care  is  made  up  of  man  labor  employed  in 
pruning,  disposing  of  brush,  and  spraying ;  spray  materials  and 
charges  for  use  of  pruning  shears,  sprayers,  and  other  items  used  in 
caring  for  the  trees. 

All  labor  expended  in  tree  care  was  charged  at  the  going  rate  paid 
when  men  were  hired  to  do  the  work. 

Horse  labor  used  in  tree  care  was  included  under  soil  care  and 
not  carried  as  a  separate  item. 

Spray  materials  were  figured  at  actual  cost  delivered  at  the  ranch. 

Man-labor  requirements  for  pruning  amounted  to  a  total  of  17,032.8 
man-hours  on  2460.5  acres  of  79  orchards  where  the  work  was  done 
with  day  labor.  The  cost  amounted  to  a  total  of  $8,563.47.  The  rates 
per  acre  averaged,  therefore,  6.92  man-hours  of  labor  at  the  rate  of 
50.3  cents  per  hour. 

Forty-three  of  these  149  orchards,  involving  1,340  acres,  were 
sprayed  at  a  total  cost  for  material  of  $3,594.36,  or  at  the  rate  of  $2.68 
per  acre  for  those  sprayed.  This  gives  78.5  cents  per  acre  as  a  weighted 
average  for  the  total  acreage  (4577.39  acres)  covered  by  this  study. 

Contract  Soil  and  Tree  Care. — In  the  Banning  orchard  district,  it 
is  common  to  contract  for  much  of  the  work.  One  grower  contracted 
his  plowing,  cultivating,  and  irrigating  at  $20  an  acre.  Another 
grower  contracted  all  tree  care  at  $5.25  an  acre ;  another  at  $6  an 
acre ;  two  others  at  $10  an  acre.  One  grower  contracted  his  spraying 
at  $15  an  acre. 


BUL.  422]  C0ST    OF   PRODUCING   ALMONDS   IN    CALIFORNIA  19 

Contract  prices  paid  for  soil  care  (horses,  tractor,  men)  cost  $7, 
$10,  and  $21.82  an  acre  for  each  of  the  three  orchards  in  the  Paso 
Robles  District  for  which  this  work  was  contracted. 

In  the  Arbuckle-College  City  District,  contract  work  of  handling 
the  soil  was  done  at  various  figures,  depending  upon  the  amount  of 
work  done— $3.50,  $6,  $8.50,  $9,  $9.50,  $10,  and  $12.50  an  acre, 
respectively,  on  different  orchards. 


HARVESTING 

Harvesting  consists  of  knocking  the  nuts  from  the  trees  and 
delivering  them  to  the  huller.  Costs  were  figured  either  on  a  day  basis 
(this  figure  including  the  cost  of  horse  or  tractor  labor  when  used  in 
harvest)  or  at  orchard-contract  prices.  Sleds  and  horses  were  used 
by  a  majority  of  growers  to  move  the  sheets;  in  a  few  cases  men 
dragged  the  sheets  from  tree  to  tree  by  hand. 

An  average  of  IV2  horse-days  per  acre  was  utilized  on  15  orchards, 
the  records  of  which  were  in  sufficient  detail  to  permit  averaging. 
This  amounted  to  1  horse-day  for  each  280  pounds  of  nuts  harvested. 
Thirty  of  the  149  records  could  be  analyzed  to  show  the  rate  of  work 
per  man-day.  The  range  in  amount  of  nuts  gathered  per  man-day 
varied  from  14  to  218  pounds,  with  an  average  of  91  pounds.  Size  of 
knocking  crews  in  these  30  cases  varied  from  1  to  6  men ;  11  had  3  men 
each ;  9  had  2  men  each ;  4  had  4  men  each ;  and  2  each  had  1,5,  and 
6  men.  The  cost  of  knocking  and  delivering  to  the  huller  ranged  from 
2  to  4.9  cents  per  pound,  and  averaged  2.6  cents.  In  seven  orchards, 
knocking  was  contracted  on  a  tree  basis,  the  rates  varying  from  15  to 
35  cents  a  tree,  and  averaging  22  cents. 


HULLING 

Hulling  when  done  by  day  labor  was  figured  on  the  number  of 
hours  of  man  or  woman  labor  at  the  going  hourly  wage.  When  hulling 
was  done  by  contract,  the  actual  cost  of  the  work  was  used. 

The  cost  of  hulling  ranged  from  1  cent  to  4  cents  a  pound,  and 
averaged  close  to  2  cents  a  pound. 

A  number  of  growers  (especially  near  Banning  and  Orland)  had 
the  almonds  hulled  by  hand.  The  cost  per  pound  rate  about  equalled 
that  of  machine  work. 


20  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

DBYING,   SACKING,   AND   DELIVEEING 

Charges  for  drying,  sacking,  and  delivering  were  figured  from  the 
actual  time  spent  at  the  going  wage.  The  cost  varied  from  0.6  to  8.5 
cents18  a  pound,  and  averaged  1.5  cents. 

Delivery  charges  varied  according  to  distance  which  the  almonds 
had  to  be  hauled.  The  cost  per  ton  varied  from  $1  to  $1618  and 
averaged  $2.50. 

OFFICE  EXPENSE 

Expenditures  for  telephone,  record  books,  stationery,  stamps,  and 
similar  items  of  office  costs  were  determined  and  the  proper  proportion 
charged  to  the  almond  orchard. 

Of  the  149  operators,  54  reported  a  figure  for  office  expense,  the 
total  amounting  to  $830.50  or  an  average  for  the  entire  almond  acreage 
studied  of  18  cents  an  acre. 

TAXES 

The  amount  paid  for  taxes  assessed  against  each  almond  orchard 
was  in  every  instance  taken  from  county  tax  records.  Taxes  for 
horses,  tractors,  automobiles,  buildings,  pumping  plants,  and  other 
equipment  were  carried  to  these  respective  accounts.  The  item  of 
" taxes"  in  each  of  the  various  tables  refers  only  to  taxes  paid  on 
orchard  land  and  trees. 

Taxes  paid  on  these  4577.39  acres  of  bearing  orchard  (land  and 
trees)  amounted,  in  1925,  to  $16,235.65  or  an  average  of  $3.55  per  acre. 
The  tax  rates  per  $100  of  assessed  value  for  orchards  studied  were 
as  follows : 

District  Tax  rate 

Banning $5.80 

Paso  Kobles  2.35-4.40 

Oakley  3.31 

Oakdale   3.34-4.90 

Modesto-Atwater-Livingston    3.44-3.55 

Winters-Esparto-B-umsey   4.98-5.22 

Arbuckle-College  City 2.67-3.20 

Orland    2.54-3.36 

Chico-Durham-Hamilton  City 4.37 

Yuba  City-Live  Oak-Pennington  5.07-6.17 

Variable  rates  in  a  given  district  depended  on  the  amount  of 
special  district  taxes  over  and  above  the  fixed  county  rate. 


s  The  latter  figure  included  delivering  from  Terra  Bella  to  Oakdale,  190  miles. 


BuL.  422]  CosT   OF   PRODUCING   ALMONDS   IN    CALIFORNIA  21 

Various  ways  of  assessing  were  in  use.  In  the  Paso  Robles  district, 
no  assessment  was  made  on  fruit  trees  until  they  were  five  years  of 
age,  they  then  being  classed  as  improvements  and  assessed  as  such. 
In  the  Oakley  district,  land  was  assessed  at  from  $48  to  $70  per  acre, 
depending  on  location,  soil,  and  improvements.  There  was  an  added 
assessment  of  from  $10  to  $15  per  acre  made  for  trees.  In  the  Oakdale 
district,  trees  and  vines  were  classed  as  improvements,  and  $60  per 
acre  was  added  to  the  usual  per  acre  assessment  of  the  land  to  cover 
the  orchard.  In  the  Modesto-Livingston-Atwater  district,  land  was 
assessed  at  rates  varying  from  $60  to  $125  per  acre,  according  to  pro- 
ductivity and  location.  Orchards  were  classed  as  improvements,  and 
bearing  orchards  were  assessed  at  from  $40  to  $60  per  acre  additional. 
In  the  Winters-Esparto~Rumsey  district,  assessments  were  made  on  a 
basis  of  50  per  cent  of  sale  value,  no  assessments  being  made  on  fruit 
trees  until  five  years  old.  Orchard  land  of  the  Arbuckle-College  City 
district  was  assessed  at  rates  varying  from  $40  to  $50  per  acre, 
according  to  location  and  selling  value.  Bearing  trees  were  assessed  at 
from  $35  to  $40  per  acre.  Orchards  which  had  not  reached  bearing 
age  were  not  assessed.  Orland-district  orchards  were  assessed  at  from 
$50  to  $75,  with  an  additional  $25  to  $35  for  the  trees  thereon. 
Orchard  lands  in  the  vicinity  of  Durham  were  assessed  at  from  $100  to 
$120  per  acre,  and  in  the  vicinity  of  Chico  at  from  $125  to  $200  per 
acre,  a  $25  assessment  being  added  to  cover  trees  in  both  of  these 
localities.  In  the  Yuba  City-Live  Oak-Pennington  district,  almond 
lands  were  assessed  at  figures  ranging  from  $60  to  $125  according  to 
location  and  sales  value,  a  majority  of  the  orchard  assessments  being 
below  $100.  Trees  were  assessed  at  rates  varying  from  $25  to  $55 
per  acre. 

USE  OF  EQUIPMENT 

"Equipment"  covers  special  buildings,  implements,  plows,  disks, 
harrows,  etc.,  pruning  shears,  spray  machinery,  ladders,  wagons, 
canvas  sheets,  knocking  poles,  drying  trays,  lug  boxes,  harvesting 
sleds,  hullers,  huller  motors  or  engines,  and  drying  bins.  One  hun- 
dred ten  of  the  149  orchards,  involving  a  total  farm  acreage  of  18,981 
acres,  were  handled  with  equipment  owned  by  the  operators.  Of  this 
total  acreage,  3650.5  acres  were  in  bearing  almond  orchards.  Equip- 
ment was  hired  for  the  other  orchards.  The  purchase  price  of  the 
equipment  amounted  to  $140,085.61,  or  an  average  of  $7.38  per  acre 
for  the  total  acreage  (18,981)  thus  equipped. 

Seventy-eight  per  cent  of  the  total  charge  for  use  of  equipment 
went  against  almonds  on  these  110  farms. 


22  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

The  annual  charge  for  total  use  of  this  equipment  was  as  follows : 

Interest  charge  on  average  investment  at  6  per  cent $4,202.56 

Depreciation    11,644.44 

Upkeep,  including  taxes  and  insurance  4,481.69 

$20,328.69 

Of  this  total  annual  charge  ($20,328.69),  the  sum  of  $15,856.35 
(78  per  cent)  is  chargeable  against  3650.5  acres  of  almonds.  This 
amounts  to  a  charge  for  orchards  thus  equipped  of  $4.36  per  acre. 

A  considerable  range  was  found  to  exist  in  the  amounts  expended 
to  equip  different  holdings,  because  of  such  factors  as  (a)  current 
prices  when  purchased,  (&)  available  capital,  (c)  equipment  hired, 
(d)  developing  of  orchard  under  non-resident  conditions,  (e)  size  of 
holdings,  (/)  age  of  trees,  (g)  operator's  ideas  of  what  constitutes 
suitable  equipment,  (h)  equipment  on  hand  at  time  of  acquiring 
orchard. 

Taxes. — Equipment  such  as  implements,  hullers,  tractors,  and 
horses  were  assessed  in  various  ways.  In  the  Paso  Robles  and  Winters- 
Esparto-Rumsey  districts,  equipment  such  as  hullers  and  implements 
were  classed  and  assessed  as  improvements,  the  basis  being  40  per  cent 
of  list  price,  with  deductions  to  offset  age  and  condition.  In  the 
Arbuckle-College  City,  Orland,  Chico-Durham-Hamilton  City,  and 
Yuba  City-Live  Oak-Pennington  districts,  hullers  and  implements 
were  classed  as  improvements  and  assessed  in  accordance  with  list 
price,  age,  and  condition.  In  the  Oakley  district,  there  was  no  tax  on 
such  property.  No  increase  in  assessment  was  made  for  irrigation 
equipment  or  irrigated  lands.  In  the  Oakdale  district  implements  and 
machinery  were  assessed  at  one-half  their  list  price,  with  adjustments 
for  age  and  condition. 

Tractors  in  most  districts  were  assessed  on  a  basis  of  40  per  cent 
of  list  price  for  the  first  year,  30  per  cent  the  second,  and  20  per  cent 
the  third  year,  with  no  set  rate  thereafter. 

Horses  were  assessed  individually,  the  practice  varying.  Few 
horses  in  the  Oakley  district  were  deemed  to  be  of  sufficient  value  to 
warrant  assessing.  In  the  Paso  Robles  and  Oakdale  districts,  their 
assessed  value  was  taken  at  one-half  of  the  market  value.  Work 
horses  in  the  Modesto-Atwater-Livingston  district  were  assessed  at 
$50  a  head,  and  at  $40  in  the  Winters-Esparto-Rumsey  district. 

Determining  Interest  Charges. — In  figuring  interest  in  calculating 
charges  for  use  of  horses,  tractors,  buildings,  and  implements,  a  uni- 
form rate  of  6  per  cent  per  annum  was  used.  Interest  was  figured  on 
the  life  of  the  item  rather  than  for  the  given  year  under  study.  Invest- 
ments in  farm  equipment  are  made  for  a  period  of  years,  and  difficulty 


Bul,  422] 


COST    OF    PRODUCING    ALMONDS    IN    CALIFORNIA 


23 


is  encountered  in  attempting  to  fix  an  arbitrary  valuation  for  any 
given  single  year. 

Insurance. — Insurance  premiums,  when  actually  paid,  were  in- 
cluded, although  it  was  evident  that  a  good  many  farmers  personally 
assumed  risks  of  fire  and  theft  and  did  not  make  cash  investments  for 
such  protection.  It  is  possible  that  in  studies  of  this  kind  one  should 
ignore  insurance  on  the  grounds  that  sufficient  premiums  are  not  car- 
ried to  indicate  the  cost  of  carrying  this  risk,  and  instead  put  in  the 
value  of  any  items  actually  destroyed  or  lost  during  the  year  under 
study  as  a  charge  against  the  business.  This  latter  method  is  satis- 
factory in  compiling  and  assembling  several  records  into  a  single 
group,  but  if  used  for  a  single  business,  a  loss  in  any  one  year  would 
place  a  disproportionate  burden  upon  the  business  for  that  year.  In 
this  study  risks  have  been  ignored  when  carried  by  the  farmers  them- 
selves, but  have  been  included  whenever  premiums  were  paid. 

Depreciation. — For  purposes  of  record,  rates  of  depreciation  are 
shown  below: 

TABLE  3 

Kates  of  Depreciation  for  Selected  Items  of  Equipment 


Items 


Range  in 
depreciation 


Average 
depreciation 


Mode 


Plows 

Disks 

Harrows  (spike) 
Harrows  (spring) 

Hullers 

Sheets 

Trays 

Spray  rigs 


Per  cent 

5-20 
3M-20 
3M-10 
5-20 
5-20 
10-33 H 
5-20 

8H-10 


Per  cent 


4*A 
8V5 

10 

18 

11 
9»A 


Per  cent 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
20 

10 


Automobile  Costs. — Costs,  carefully  determined,  resulted  in  find- 
ings for  the  automobiles  used  in  connection  with  these  orchards  as 
follows : 

Mileage:  average  per  car,  886  miles.  Average  cost  per  mile 

Interest  .44  cents 

Depreciation    2.12 

Fuel  1.37 

Oil    36 

Tires    1.16 

Taxes    17 

Insurance   .10 

Eepairs  ' 76 

Shelter    25 

6.73  cents  per  mile 


24  UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 


MANAGEMENT 

The  charge  for  management  is  usually  an  estimated  and  not  an 
actual  expenditure.  Wide  variation  existed  in  estimates,  by  growers, 
of  time  spent  in  management  and  of  values  placed  upon  such  service. 
Some  growers  modestly  stated  that  no  charge  should  be  made  to  cover 
their  management ;  others  indicated  a  figure  that  appeared  to  be  out  of 
proportion  with  the  justifiable  amount  of  time  that  they  should  logic- 
ally spend  in  purely  business  details  on  the  basis  of  the  amount  of 
acreage  under  their  charge. 

Nearly  40  per  cent  of  those  who  were  asked  to  figure  a  fair  charge 
for  management  stated  that  in  their  opinion  no  management  charge 
was  justified  so  far  as  they  individually  were  concerned.  Of  those 
who  estimated  the  value  of  time  given  over  to  management,  the  charge 
per  acre  for  the  acreage  controlled  by  them  averaged  $7.84.  If  the 
total  of  these  estimates  for  management  be  prorated  over  the  total 
acreage  handled  by  all  operators,  including  those  who  did  not  supply 
a  figure  for  this  charge,  the  average  per  acre  amounts  to  $5.51.  This 
figure  of  $5.51  per  acre  to  cover  management,  based  on  the  total 
acreage,  appears  to  reflect  growers'  judgment  as  to  the  amount  which 
should  be  charged  to  cover  management.  This  figure  varies  widely, 
however,  with  holdings. 

In  our  various  tables  management  has  been  omitted  because  of 
the  wide  range  in  estimates  and  the  difficulty  of  securing  data.  If  a 
charge  for  management  be  desired,  the  average  cost  amounts  to  1.3 
cents  per  pound  of  almonds  produced,  since  the  average  production  of 
almonds  in  1925  from  these  149  orchards  was  418  pounds  per  acre. 


DEPEECIATION  OF  TEEES 

Although  depreciation  of  trees  is  an  item  of  expense,  a  proper 
charge  is  difficult  to  determine.  It  can  at  best  only  be  an  estimate, 
since  basic  data  are  generally  lacking.  Because  of  the  lack  of  basic 
cost  data  covering  the  planting  and  bringing  into  bearing  of  the 
orchards  studied,  lack  of  adequate  records  of  trends  of  market  prices 
for  lands,  and  lack  of  knowledge  concerning  the  productive  life  of 
trees,  depreciation  could  not  be  calculated  for  these  orchards.  The 
charge  is  a  cost  item,  however.  Some  idea  of  a  depreciation  charge 
can  be  gathered  from  a  study  of  table  4. 


Bul.  422] 


COST    OF    PRODUCING    ALMONDS    IN    CALIFORNIA 


25 


TABLE  4 
Examples  of  Orchard  Depreciation,  by  Districts 


Market  price  of  fully  matured 
orchards— Average  for  all  orchards 
in  district,  1925 

Market  price  of  open  land  ready  and 
suitable  for  almonds 

Value  of  trees 

Estimated  life  of  orchard,  years 

Annual  depreciation  per  acre  in 
dollars 

Annual  depreciation  per  acre  in  per 
cent 


<s 

>, 

^o 

o 
o 

>> 
3 

a 

'3 
a 

-2 

3 

3 

u 

"5 

O 

o 

o 

o 

n 
T3 

sS 

J3 

Ph 

o 

w 

O 

< 

& 

>H 

O 

a 

$400 

$450 

$500 

$500 

$300 

$550 

$525 

$750 

$550 

$150 

$175 

$200 

$200 

$125 

$250 

$225 

$400 

$225 

$250 

$275 

$300 

$300 

$175 

$300 

$300 

$350 

$325 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

35 

35 

30 

$8.33 

$9.02 

$10.00 

$10.00 

$5.66 

$10  00 

$8.57 

$10  00 

$10  00 

3.3% 

3.3% 

33% 

3.3% 

3.3% 

3.3% 

2.9% 

2.9% 

3.3% 

$350 

$150, 

$200 

30 

$10  00 

33% 


Cost  of  cleaning  trees  ignored. 

Land  values  on  all  orchards  included  in  the  district  were  averaged  to  get  the  value  of  orchard  lands 
used  in  this  study. 

INTEREST   UPON    OPERATING   FUNDS 

An  interest  charge  to  cover  use  of  funds  for  current  operating 
expenses  is  an  item  entering  into  cost  of  production.  Usually,  a  check- 
ing account  kept  in  a  local  bank  for  such  current  expenses  indicates 
the  amount  of  money  upon  which  interest  should  be  allowed.  In  this 
study,  however,  growers  were  almost  unanimous  in  stating  that  they 
did  not  consider  funds  thus  held  of  sufficient  importance  to  justify 
a  charge  to  cover  their  use,  and  hence  no  provision  has  been  made 
to  cover  this  item  in  our  various  tables. 


INTEREST  UPON  INVESTMENT  IN  ORCHARD 

No  attempt  has  been  made  to  include  interest  upon  investment  in 
orchard — land  or  trees — as  a  cost  item,  because,  first,  there  is  a  ques- 
tion as  to  the  propriety  of  such  a  charge.  Some  economists  tend  to 
view  interest  earnings  as  profits  rather  than  as  costs.  In  rebuttal, 
growers  point  out  that  moneys  invested  in  orchards  could  be  put  in 
stocks,  bonds,  or  savings  banks,  and  earn  a  fairly  well-established  rate 
of  interest.  Even  if  an  attempt  were  made  to  include  interest  upon 
the  investment  as  a  cost  item,  great  difficulty  surrounds  the  finding 
of  a  proper  basis.  Market  price  is  not  a  criterion,  because  it  involves 
not  only  productive  value,  but  home  value,  and  possible  increases  in 
yalue — the  speculative,  or  potential,  feature. 


26 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


An  idea  of  the  sum  resulting  from  charging  interest  upon  the 
investment  in  orchard  and  trees  can  be  gathered  from  a  study  of  table 
5,  which  sets  forth  local  estimates  of  market  prices  of  bearing  almond 
orchards  exclusive  of  buildings  and  other  equipment. 

TABLE  5 

Local  Estimates  of  Maeket  Prices  of  Bearing  Almond  Orchards 

(Land  and  Trees  Only) 


District 

Number  of 
acres 

Average  value 
per  acre 

Value  of  land- 
orchards  studied 

497.85 
202.00 
582.71 
388.48 
640.60 
361.00 
288.75 
380.50 
477.00 
372.50 
386.00 

$400.00 
500.00 
450  00 
500  00 
550.00 
300.00 
350.00 
750.00 
525.00 
550.00 
300.00 

$199,220  00 

101,000  00 

262,291.50 

194,240.00 

352,000.00 

108,300.00 

101,062.50 

Chico : 

285,375.00 

Yuba  City 

250,420.00 

204,875.00 

115,800.00 

$2,174,665.00 

If  interest  be  figured  at  5  per  cent,  the  land  charge,  based  on 
average  values,  as  set  forth  in  table  5,  amounts  to  5.7  cents  per  pound 
of  almonds  produced  in  1925.  If  the  interest  rate  be  taken  at  6 
per  cent,  the  land  charge  amounts  to  6.8  cents  per  pound. 


CULTURAL  PRACTICES 

COSTS  ON  AN  ACREAGE  OR  POUNDAGE  BASIS 

In  general,  annual  costs  for  soil  and  tree  care  are  best  measured 
on  an  acre  basis,  rather  than  on  the  pound  basis.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  cost  of  harvesting  and  marketing,  within  certain  fairly  well-defined 
limits,  varies  with  the  size  of  the  crop.  The  cost  per  pound  of  yield  is, 
therefore,  a  better  measure  of  harvesting  cost  than  the  cost  per  acre. 
In  our  tables  both  measures  are  used,  but  the  reader  will  do  well  to 
keep  in  mind  the  distinctions  as  here  outlined.  The  costs  for  soil  and 
tree  care  are  governed  by  local  practice.  These  costs  must  be  met  no 
matter  what  the  yield  may  be.  Harvest  costs  fluctuate  with  the  size  of 
the  crop.  By  taking  into  account  the  returns  per  pound  of  nuts,  after 
deducting  harvest  costs,  it  is  possible  to  determine  the  number  of 
pounds  which  must  be  produced  to  cover  charges  at  current  costs  for 
tree  and  soil  care  as  ordinarily  given. 


BUL.  422]  CosT    OF   PRODUCING   ALMONDS   IN    CALIFORNIA  27 

These  costs  are  based  on  actual  orchard  practices.  That  practices 
are  by  no  means  uniform  or  standardized  is  traceable  not  only  to  a 
lack  of  understanding,  but  to  difference  of  opinion  as  to  what  is  best, 
to  influences  of  insufficient  income  or  working  capital,  and  to  non- 
resident ownership.  There  is  a  tendency  to  cut  down  expenditures 
after  seasons  of  low  returns.  Such  reduction,  particularly  when 
directed  toward  pruning,  spraying,  irrigating,  and  cultivating,  is 
liable  to  be  costly  and  to  contribute  to  some  extent  to  a  low  average 
yield  for  the  state.  Usually  both  soil  and  tree  care  must  be  provided 
each  year,  irrespective  of  the  quantity  and  quality  of  the  crop.  It 
was  evident,  though,  that  regularly  or  semi-regularly  producing 
orchards  actually  did  receive  better  care  than  orchards  known  to  be 
irregular  or  shy  bearers.  The  reason  may  be  lack  of  available  funds 
in  proportion  to  the  degree  of  crop  failure,  or  loss  of  interest  in  the 
orchard,  or  discouragement.  Sometimes  inadequate  care  is  traceable 
to  ignorance  concerning  proper  procedure  in  handling  soil  or  trees. 

It  is  not  necessary  herein  to  set  forth  in  detail  the  various  opera- 
tions practiced  in  handling  each  of  the  149  orchards  comprising  this 
study  of  costs.  A  brief  review  of  the  more  generally  accepted  prac- 
tices will,  however,  show  the  usual  method  followed  in  handling  Cali- 
fornia almond  orchards,  and  also  provide  an  explanation  of  the 
various  expenditures  for  operations  which  make  up  a  large  proportion 
of  the  cost  of  producing  almonds. 


TREE   CAKE 

Pruning. — Tree  care  consisted  of  pruning  and  pest  control.  Prun- 
ing, as  practiced  in  these  149  orchards,  usually  consisted  of  a  light 
cutting  designed  to  remove  water  sprouts,  dead  wood,  open  up  centers, 
and  to  shape  the  new  growth.  Occasionally  a  heavy  pruning  was  given 
for  the  purpose  of  removing  cross  limbs  and  dead  limbs,  reshaping 
trees,  thinning  thick  growths,  and  shortening  branches.  Though 
annual  pruning  is  the  rule,  10  per  cent  of  the  growers  confined  their 
pruning  operations  to  once  in  two  or  even  three  years.  The  frequency 
and  extent  of  pruning  depended  on  the  amount  of  growth  made,  being 
relatively  light  in  all  orchards  except  those  situated  in  an  unusual 
growing  environment. 

Pruning  was  mostly  done  during  the  months  of  November,  Decem- 
ber, January,  and  February,  although  one  grower  confined  his  prun- 
ing to  the  removal  of  water  sprouts  during  April  and  May. 


28  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Pest  Control. — Only  61  of  these  149  orchards  were  sprayed.  Spray- 
ing and  dusting  practices  for  the  control  of  red  spider  or  brown  mite 
varied.  The  tendency  was  to  give  either  one  or  more  of  (1)  a  winter 
or  early  spring  spraying  with  lime-sulphur,  (2)  a  dusting  with  sulphur 
during  the  spring  months,  or  (3)  a  spraying  with  lime-sulphur  during 
the  summer  months.  One  or  two  sprayings  was  the  rule.  Exceptions 
noted  consisted  of  one  orchard  sprayed  with  a  crude  oil  emulsion  in 
connection  with  lime-sulphur,  one  orchard  where  sulphur  was  placed 
in  the  crotches  of  the  trees,  and  nine  orchards  which  were  sprayed  in 
November  or  in  February  with  Bordeaux  mixture  for  control  of  fungi. 

Pests  reported  during  the  season  of  192,5  consisted  of  red  spider, 
brown  mite,  crown  gall,  shot  hole  fungus,  and  peach  borer.  Morning 
glory,  puncture  vine,  Johnson  grass,  Bermuda  grass,  and  Russian 
thistle  were  reported  as  serious  pests  in  a  number  of  orchards.  Some 
damage  by  linnets  and  sparrows  to  blossoms,  and  by  crows  to  ripening 
nuts  was  recorded.  Gophers  and  ground  squirrels  were  reported  as 
pests  in  some  orchards. 

CULTIVATION 

Generally  the  plan  of  cultivation  provided  for  a  planted  or  natural 
green-manure  crop,  to  be  turned  under,  usually  in  March,  with  the 
plow  or  disk  harrow,  or  both,  to  be  then  followed  with  generous  use 
of  the  disk  harrow,  sometimes  supplemented  with  the  spring-tooth  or 
spike-tooth  harrows,  and  finally  a  floating  or  harrowing  to  firm  the 
land  in  advance  of  the  harvest.  Subsoilers  and  chisel-tooth  cultivators 
were  occasionally,  although  not  generally,  used.  Relatively  shallow 
working,  to  a  depth  of  4  or  5  inches,  appeared  to  be  the  rule,  supple- 
mented on  a  few  orchards  by  a  12  to  16-inch  subsoiling.  Growers  in 
different  districts,  however,  deviated  from  the  general  plan. 

In  the  Banning  district,  a  common  plan  was  either  to  grow  a  green- 
manure  crop  by  seeding  to  one  or  more  of  Meliotus  indica,  bur  clover, 
and  vetch,  or  else  to  raise  a  volunteer  crop  of  natural  growth.  Some 
growers  plowed  before  seeding.  All  concentrated  on  spring  plowing 
to  a  depth  of  from  3  to  5  inches,  for  the  purpose  of  turning  under  the 
green  growth.  The  plow  and  harrow — disk,  spring,  and  spike — were 
the  principal  implements.  Summer  handling  consisted  of  opening 
furrows  for  irrigation,  and  of  disking,  cultivating,  or  spike-tooth 
harrowing  after  each  irrigation. 

In  the  Paso  Robles  district,  cultivation  was  maintained  mostly 
with  disk  and  spring-tooth  harrows,  supplemented  occasionally  with 
plowing  or  subsoiling.     The  steepness  of  many  of  the  orchard  lands 


Bul.  422]  CoST   OF   PRODUCING   ALMONDS   IN    CALIFORNIA  29 

renders  plowing  difficult,  and  hence  the  disk  has  been  substituted  for 
the  plow  as  more  efficient  and  economical.  The  orchards  were  usually 
disked  in  spring,  and  later  during  the  season  given  from  one  to  four 
additional  workings,  the  disking  being  repeated  often  enough  to  insure 
adequate  weed  control  and  conservation  of  moisture.  The  spring-tooth 
harrow  was  also  used  occasionally  after  spring  rains  to  break  surface 
crusts  and  to  assist  in  weed  control.  Chisel-tooth  cultivators  and 
weeders  were  used  in  a  few  orchards.  Orchards  were  gone  over  with 
these  various  tools  from  three  to  twelve  times  during  the  year,  although 
the  usual  number  was  five  or  six  times.  Hoeing  around  trees  in 
summer  to  take  out  the  weeds  missed  during  cultivation  was  practiced 
in  some  orchards. 

In  the  Oakley  district,  soil  care  was  relatively  simple  because  of 
the  sandy  nature  of  the  soil.  The  principal  working  of  the  land 
occurred  in  February  or  March,  the  land  being  either  plowed  or  disked 
to  a  depth  of  from  2%  to  4  inches.  The  orchards  were  then  harrowed 
both  ways,  again  disked  or  spring-toothed  in  May  or  June,  and  har- 
rowed or  floated  just  before  harvest.  Some  hoeing  of  weeds  from 
around  the  trees  was  done  during  the  summer.  Cover  crops  were 
grown  on  three  orchards  under  irrigation,  the  resulting  crop  being 
turned  under  during  March  by  means  of  several  thorough  diskings. 

Orchards  studied  in  the  Oakdale  district  were  given  at  least  one 
plowing,  usually  in  March,  though  occasionally  in  January,  February, 
or  April.  In  some  cases  a  second  and  even  a  third  plowing  was  added. 
The  depth  of  plowing  varied  from  4  to  10  inches,  although  the  shallow 
plowing  (4  or  5  inches  in  depth)  appeared  to  be  the  rule.  After 
plowing,  the  orchards  were  gone  over  both  ways  with  a  spring-tooth 
harrow.  Cultivation  varied  during  the  summer,  most  orchards  being 
gone  over  several  times  with  a  disk,  spring-tooth  harrow,  or  weeder, 
the  amount  of  work  depending  on  weed  growth  or  crusting  from  late 
rains. 

In  the  Modesto-Atwater-Livingston,  the  Arbuckle-College  City, 
the  Orland,  and  the  Chico-Durham-Hamilton  City  districts,  spring 
plowing  to  a  depth  of  4  to  5  inches  was  the  rule,  although  a  tendency 
was  noted  in  some  orchards  to  replace  plowing  with  disking  as  the 
latter  was  believed  to  give  satisfactory  results  at  less  expense.  A 
disking  or  spring-tooth  harrowing  usually  followed  the  plowing. 
Summer  cultivation  consisted  of  disking  or  spring-tooth  harrowing. 
In  some  instances  a  harrowing  or  floating  to  level  the  land  for  spread- 
ing sheets  preceded  harvest  time.  In  the  Arbuckle-College  City 
district,  some  fall  subsoiling  was  practiced. 


30  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

In  the  Winters-Esparto-Rumsey  district,  soil  handling  usually 
consisted  of  plowing,  or  double  disking  and  chisel-tooth  cultivating, 
in  February  or  March,  to  a  depth  varying  from  4  to  10  inches,  though 
usually  4  to  6  inches  in  depth.  Occasionally  an  orchard  was  sub- 
soiled  during  the  fall.  After  plowing  or  disking,  the  land  was  again 
disked,  and  later  in  the  summer  was  usually  gone  over  with  a  spring- 
tooth  harrow  and  a  weed  cutter  to  preserve  a  surface  mulch  and  to 
control  weed  growth.  One  orchard  (Yuba  City,  No.  7)  was  planted  to 
alfalfa  between  the  tree  rows  and  hence  not  plowed,  disked,  or 
cultivated. 

IRRIGATION 

In  the  Banning  district  all  orchards  were  irrigated,  the  number  of 
irrigations  varying  from  four  to  eight,  at  30-day  intervals,  beginning 
about  May  1st.  Most  growers  applied  water  six  times,  running  the 
water  in  furrows  for  48  hours  (in  one  orchard  for  72  hours),  until 
an  estimated  4  to  5-acre  inches  had  been  applied. 

In  the  Oakley  district,  where  irrigation  was  introduced  only  within 
the  preceding  three  or  four  years,  four  orchards  were  irrigated  three 
times,  two  orchards  twice,  and  one  orchard  once.  Six  of  the  seven 
irrigated  orchards  were  flooded — the  seventh  being  irrigated  by  a 
combination  of  furrows  and  basins. 

In  the  Oakdale  district,  one  orchard  each  was  irrigated  once  or 
twice,  two  orchards  three  times,  and  part  of  one  orchard  once.  The 
others  were  not  irrigated  yet  the  cost  data  include  an  irrigation 
district  tax  which  was  paid. 

In  the  Modesto-Atwater-Livingston  district,  four  orchards  were 
irrigated  once,  four  twice,  and  one  six  times.  The  cost  data  table  of 
the  others,  though  not  irrigated,  include  an  irrigation  district  tax. 
Either  furrows  or  checks  were  used. 

In  the  Orland  district  all  orchards  were  irrigated  by  either  the 
furrow  or  check  system — two  orchards  being  irrigated  once,  five  twice, 
and  two  three  times. 

In  the  Yuba  City  district  two  orchards  were  irrigated  once,  and 
one  twice.  In  the  Lodi  district  two  orchards  were  irrigated  once,  and 
a  third  two  times.  The  Terra  Bella  orchard  was  irrigated  six  times, 
by  means  of  furrows. 

A  total  of  81  of  the  149  orchards  were  not  irrigated.  No  facilities 
for  irrigating  were  available  in  an}T  of  the  orchards  studied  in  the 
Paso  Robles  and  Arbuckle-College  City  districts.  In  other  districts  a 
number  of  orchards  did  not  possess  facilities  for  irrigating,  or  else 
though  equipped  did  not  irrigate  to  any  extent  during  the  1925  season, 


Bul.  422] 


COST    OF    PRODUCING    ALMONDS    IN    CALIFORNIA 


31 


because  of  a  high  water  table,  or  because  the  crop  prospect  did  not,  in 
the  opinion  of  the  growers,  justify  the  expense.  The  distribution  of 
irrigated  and  non-irrigated  orchards  during  the  season  of  1925  was 
as  follows: 

TABLE  6 
Distribution  of  Irrigated  and  Non-irrigated  Orchards 


District 

Irrigated 

Not  irrigated 

15 
0 
7 

13 
12 
2 
0 
9 
2 
3 
1 
3 
1 

0 

12 

7 

1 

Modesto-Atwater-  Livingston '. 

Winters-Esparto-Rumsey 

0 
15 
15 

Orland  

0 

15 

Yuba  City-Live  Oak-Pennington 

11 
5 

0 

Terra  Bella 

0 

Totals 

68 

81 

HARVESTING 

The  harvesting  of  almonds  began  about  the  middle  of  July  (in 
Banning),  though  most  districts  did  not  start  until  August.  The 
harvesting  period  extended  into  October,  with  the  bulk  of  the  harvest- 
ing taking  place  in  August  and  September.  The  usual  practice  was 
to  knock  off  the  nuts  with  either  long  poles  or  clubs,  and  catch  them 
on  large  canvas  sheets,  usually  12  by  24  feet  in  size,  spread  in  pairs 
under  the  trees.  When  a  load  was  gathered  it  was  dumped  into  a  long 
box  (20  to  24  feet  long  and  3  to  4  feet  wide),  built  on  wheels  or 
runners,  and  then  either  sacked  or  boxed,  or  else  dragged  directly  to 
the  hullers.  An  exception  to  the  usual  rule  consisted  in  the  use  by  one 
grower  of  a  pair  of  wagons  having  specially  constructed  beds  which 
were  drawn  alongside  a  tree,  in  place  of  canvas  sheets.  Uusually  hull- 
ing was  done  by  machine.  In  the  Banning  district,  hulling  by  hand 
was  sometimes  followed,  local  Indians  and  Mexicans  contracting  to 
do  the  job  at  an  agreed  price  about  equal  to  the  cost  of  hulling  with 
machines.  After  hulling,  the  nuts  were  dried  and  then  sacked,  and 
delivered  to  a  local  warehouse  or  to  the  buyer.  Each  variety  was 
handled  separately. 

One  hundred  one  of  these  149  growers  owned  hulling  machines' — 
the  others  relied  upon  neighbors  who  did  custom  hulling  for  a  pre- 
arranged charge. 


32 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


After  hulling  and  drying,  the  almonds  were  hauled  for  delivery 
either  to  some  receiving  warehouse  of  the  California  Almond  Growers 
Exchange  (a  cooperative  selling  organization  made  up  of  California 
almond  producers),  or  to  a  private  buyer.  Usually  delivery  required 
a  haul  of  but  a  few  miles.  Members  of  the  exchange  in  the  San 
Joaquin  Valley  south  of  the  Stanislaus  River,  however,  had  to  deliver 
to  the  Oakdale  warehouse,  thus  entailing  a  haul  in  some  cases  of  almost 
200  miles.  Members  north  of  the  Stanislaus  River,  though  close  to 
the  Oakdale  warehouse,  were  required  to  deliver  to  Lodi,  thus  increas- 
ing the  hauling  radius. 

In  all  districts  pollination  was  well  cared  for  by  the  use  of  inter- 
fertile  varieties  and  frequently  by  the  keeping  of  bees  during  blossom- 
ing time,  some  growers  renting  hives  of  bees  for  this  specific  purpose. 


SUMS    RETURNED   TO    GROWERS 

Although  this  publication  is  a  presentation  of  the  cost  of  producing 
almonds  during  a  given  season  (1925),  a  comparison  of  costs  and 
selling  price  is  instructive. 

For  purposes  of  such  comparison,  sums  returned  to  growers  for  the 
years  1920-1925,  inclusive,  as  taken  off  the  books  of  the  California 
Almond  Growers  Exchange  are  indicated  for  selected  varieties  in 
table  7. 

TABLE  7 

Prices,  in  Cents  Per  Pound,  Beturned  to  Growers  by  the  California  Almond 

Growers  Exchange  for  Selected  Varieties  of  Almonds 

1920-1925 


Variety 


1.  Nonpareil 

2.  I.  X.  L 

3.  Ne  Plus  Ultra 

4.  Drake 

5.  Texas 

6.  Peerless 

7.  Llewellyn 

8.  Languedoe 


1925 


Cents 
2b% 
23 

21K 

143^ 
18 
15 
15M 


1924 


Cents 
18M 
16M 
WA 
10M 

9^ 
14 
11 


1923 


Cents 
15 
13 
13 

8 

7 
10 


1922 


Cents 
20 
18 
16 
11 
9 
11 


1921 


Cents 
18 
17 
16 


1920 


Cents 
18K 


Almonds  are  sold  through  other  channels  than  the  exchange,  but 
the  data  of  such  sales  and  prices  were  not  available.  Exchange  prices 
are  standardized  so  that  nuts  of  a  given  variety  command  the  same 
price  irrespective  of  the  locality.  Thus,  Nonpareils  bring  the  same 
returns,  pound  for  pound,  in  Banning  as  they  do  in  Oakley  or  in 
Chico. 


BUL.  422]  CosT   OF   PRODUCING   ALMONDS   IN    CALIFORNIA  33 

Market  price  is  determined  by  the  figure  at  which  the  crop  can  be 
moved,  and  this  price  is  affected  by  supply,  elasticity  of  demand, 
quality,  shifts  in  consumption,  competition  with  other  crops,  and 
purchasing  power  of  the  consumer's  dollar. 

COSTS    BY    INDIVIDUAL    ORCHARDS 

An  average  cost,  such  as  given  on  page  —  above,  is  made  up  (1)  of 
low  costs  resulting  from  some  combination  of  (a)  small  outlays,  (&) 
large  yields,  (c)  economical  handling,  and  (d)  small  investments  in 
land,  trees,  equipment;  (2)  of  high  costs,  reflecting  some  combination 
of  (a)  excessive  outlays,  (&)  low  yields,  (c)  uneconomical  handling, 
and  (d)  large  investments  productive  of  heavy  overhead  charges;  and 
(3)  of  medium  costs  reflecting  conditions  intermediate  in  position 
between  the  two  extremes  of  high  and  low  costs.  This  means  that  some 
growers  are  producing  at  a  figure  below  the  average  cost ;  others  are 
producing  at  costs  above  the  average ;  and  still  others  are  fairly  close 
to  the  average. 

As  a  means  of  indicating  the  importance  of  combining  economy  of 
justifiable  outlays  with  methods  which  make  for  large  yields,  the  indi- 
vidual records  for  each  of  the  149  orchards  covered  by  this  study  are 
given  in  tables  8  to  18. 

A  separate  table  is  given  for  each  district,  each  table  showing  the 
number  of  acres  in  almonds,  total  yield  and  yield  per  acre  for  the 
1925  season,  expenditures  per  acre  of  orchard  segregated  into  soil  care, 
tree  care,  harvest  costs,  irrigation,  taxes,  use  of  equipment,  and  office 
expense,  total  cost  per  pound  of  nuts  produced,  combined  cost  per 
pound  for  soil  and  tree  care,  and  harvest  cost  per  pound.  The  district 
summary  is  given  at  the  foot  of  each  table. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  yields  of  certain  orchards  are  very  low. 
Though  low,  these  records  have  been  included  because  we  desired  to 
show  the  1925  situation  as  it  was,  including  all  orchards  the  crops  of 
which  were  harvested,  and  also  to  indicate  the  importance  of  the 
relation  of  yield  to  costs. 

In  all  these  tables  no  charge  has  been  included  to  cover  manage- 
ment, interest  upon  operating  capital,  interest  upon  investment  in 
orchard — land  and  trees — or  depreciation  of  trees. 

Sizes  of  trees  are  given  in  the  itemized  tables  of  details  in  order  to 
present  an  idea  of  the  growing  conditions  of  the  locality  as  reflected 
in  the  growth  of  the  trees.  The  varieties  are  placed  in  order  of 
greatest  acreage  of  each  variety  in  every  case  where  a  difference 
existed. 


34 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


pu^s  JO 

oS^uaoaad 

>OlOlf5iOOOOOO«n 

m  co 

OS    OS    OS    OS    OS    Oi    Os    Oi 

OS     OS 

OS 

gjTSunxojddy 

BO0 

CfltMCNOOOtMr^OCM 

£N    <M 

CM 

CM    O    O    CM 

o 

P 

g                     N    ffl    O             OS    O 

V  T 

■T1 

T1  T1  T  T1 

ffl 

00    00 

OO 

O    OO    00    o 

^OOlOOCOlOOOOO 

CO    <M 

CNI 

CM    CO    00    O 

S3   <D 

CM    •-<    ^H     CNI 

as 

CO 

Ct,  ■*                io                ujoo 

-*     CO 

O    lO    CO    CO 

CO 
0) 
N 

i-H     —1 

CM     -H     ^H     ^H 

-^OOCNIOOkOCMiO^ 

00    o 

t*< 

OO    CO    u~i    oo 

CBCMcNI.-1-H.-l-H^HCM 

03 

W 

Cl   lO    CO    o    o                          oo 

lO    m 

OO 

«5    ■>*<             l« 

►J 

-a 
8 

o 

CO 

.2 

CD 

1           o 

Ph 

o 

H 

Ph" 

o 

fc  Q  Q 

1 
> 

55  S5  55  Q  *  "I  £  ~ 

2-0 

Ph" 

Q   Ph"  Ph" 

.  .  .  &    .  £  _r  £ 

Pk    ^ 

S5 

H     „-hH-KH- 

fL,   Ph   Ph       .Ph       ... 

.  Ph       -      . 

££££££££ 

£    M* 

^ 

^  ^  55  ^ 

o 

3S           2    o    «    o 

O  jo  £ 

lO 

.CM        .0 

»o 

03  £  & 

<  2  ^'  ^  -<  <! 

7   °f   co   ^ 

- 

a  at., 

*-    CO    S 

SuuaAipp 

•co©coco»oiraoscNi 

CO 

pui3  guiunq 

ft©N^toe*co<o 

cb  co 

to  n  e  N 

CO 

'Sui^S8ajbjj 

(UOt^BSlJJI  SUI 

OS 

t^     t^     <— 1     CNI 

-pnpui)  9XBD 

^N^^^COSNN 

CN    CO 

CO 

■*    H    N    CO 

Qfl  on 

99.1^  puB  JlOg 

1-1 

punod 
J9d  ^soo  l^oj. 

^'TtlHNlOlOUlMlO 

t-    O 

00 

OS    iC     OS    OS 

<M 

Jh    ~ 

>o 

w  n  h  n 

i-H     CM    CM    ^H 

lO 

t^      -H 

lO 

9job  jad  ppt^ 

CO    CM 
OS    lO 

CO 

O    ^H     CM     ■* 
OS    CO    CO    00 

OS 

fflrtCOHlOOOOON 

00    OS 

CJ 

s  oo   to   n 

"* 

CO    C^    OS    CO    »— I    OS    i— llC 

IC    «*< 

CM 

t—     OS     OS     OS 

^soo  pnoj, 

UJ    *    Ol    N 

OOOOCOHMNOON 

CM     OS    CO    r-l 

OS 

^                      H             rt 

1-1                      "^ 

«^ 

9SU9dX9  901JJO 

,_; 

43 

est 

^U9UI 

co 

o 

CO 

:    O 

S 

-dmb9  jo  9S£[ 

o 

CO 

CO 

I  °° 

o 

©OOOOCNIOIOO 
©i-hioOCOOOO© 

CO    CM 

CJ 

O     -h     O     t^ 
O    00    CM    ^H 

■* 

a 

S9X13J, 

NMOOOONOO 

OS    t-- 

t^ 

O    •*    -H    OS 

00 

1-1             ^ 

OOCNOOCOt^OO'* 

CO 

oo 

0) 

uoi^bSijjj 

CO 

«^ 

to 

Suu9Aqgp 

COtOOOmHOONN 

m  oo 

OS 

t^    CO    ^H    O 

CM 

o 

puB  Su]|pq 

'SUI?S9AJBJJ 

MMMiONTllH* 

CO     CO 

CM 

"O    IN    H    to 

£2 

icoiorot^ooOTti 

■«*     «H 

lO 

CMOt^COCMlOOOi-i 

CO    CM 

OS 

t|I    IN    OO    h 

CM 

9JB0  99JJ, 

inilJNOOOCNOllO 

CO    CO 

CM 

OS    00    OO    00 

_; 

""' 

'H 

s» 

lOOOlOCONniOM 

CO    «3 

^ 

00 

NrtlOMOJOOINW 

—l    CO 

r-   -h   o  co 

9XB0  pOg 

OMNOOMOMXI 

CO    »o 

«5 

CM    CM    ^     OS 

»o 

CO     CO     H     H 

c* 

W-itlW*®ONN 

OS    o 

rH 

OO      t^      -H       -^ 

-*l 

.OMi*HOl^01!0 

epuoui 

IB  JO  PI9IA"  IB-JOX 

10    ■*.   1   ffi.  ■*.   °.   °l   N.    ". 

Jj  c<f  «o  *"-  e<T  co  co   cm  ~h 

CO_   lO 
Os"    CO 

lO 

q  ^   n  h 

CM_ 

CM 

rH 

spuouiiB 

O'-iO'OOCOOOt^- 

O    CM 

o 

CM 

Ul 

sgjoB  jo  J9qum^[ 

*H    rt 

CM 

v% 

^      CD      <U 

o-° 

co    +s     M 

Hwn^ifliONa 

OS   o 

-2     M    fe   ~ 

Qj    « 

1-1 

•-1 

«G 

O     CJ     > 

43     M    OJ 

r5        o  -r>   «h 


Bul,  4: 


COST    OF    PRODUCING    ALMONDS    IN    CALIFORNIA 


35 


pu^s  JO 

8§'B^U90J8d 

O    113    O    113    OS 

OO    to    IO    CO    OO    U)    to 

a^Bunxoaddy 

*H 

g    O    CM     <N    CM     IN 

CM    O    O             O    O    O 

o 

Q 
PQ 

"    00    O    O    O    O 

O0    00    OS    00    O0    00    00 

>> 

►5 

"C 

'c?  0; 

M    N    U5    N    N 

CM    -«f    H5    -*l    Tt<    U5    ^f 

to   *"" '    "" 

1        1         1         1         1         1 
<M     •*!     CM    CM    Tt<     CM 

"o 

03 

0) 

«2 

5 

e  «5  «  io  u) 

^    IO    to    IO    to    to    tO 

c3 
T3 

cS 

W 

£ 

IN    IO    N    K!    ■*    ■* 

T3 

ca 

J3 

§ 

o 

^H                              ^ 

2 

p  q  2-  *  7-  h 

£ 

Q             £  p  H  £ 
.  Pl,  Ph      .1-1      -     . 

H  £  Q  fc  hH" 

H^ZQhPP 

£  £  £  £  £ 

£  £  £  h  £  £  H 

*0  (o^ 

03  £  5a 

t-~ 

co 

o 

c!>      ^     < 

"^                                     OS 

**~   -   ~   ri          ~ 

to 

CO 

"3   Si   fl 

SuiJSAipp 

^  oi  ■*   r^   i-h   ■* 

N    113    N    115    N    ^    to 

CO 

pura  Suiqnq 

^   ifl    1C    *    CO    N 

tO    N    ■*    115    ifl    O    ^ 

115 

o  £  a 

act, 

'Sui^saAxejj 

■H                      1-1             i-H 

9JT30 

^    CN     CN    M    O!    t(( 

CO     CM     IO     to    i— 1    to    tO 

■* 

a  g   co 

aaj^  puB  pog 

o2rtrt2S 

CO    to    N    to    CD    ■*    IO 
^f                      Tt<             (M 

to 

gaS 

punod 

■    »    <D    N    U5    CO 

CO    0O    O    tO    to    113    H 

oo 

jad  ^soo  p^o^ 

^   00    O    N    O    CI 

V->    ,_,    rt             CM    CO 

O)    113    •*    to    CO    Ol    N 
tO    H    H    to    H    CO    H 

CO 

•    rt    rt    O)    (N    lO 

IN    Ol    OO    N    O)    CO    113 

CM 

9ioi3  J9d  piaijt 

2   to    OS    oo    io    t~- 

(O    113    rt    1(3    CO    00    OS 
H     IN             ^H             CM 

to 

CN 

to    IN    00    •<}<    O 

■*    it    to    lO    lO 

IN    H    (O    N     Ol    CO    N 

CO 

isoo  ib^ox 

OS     t^     tO     i-H     OS 

M    «3    oq    ■*    00    i*    ■* 

to 

CM    CO    to    lO    CM 

•*    IN    CO    CO    H    CO    CO 

SI 

O       :       :       :    Os 

CM 

CM 

rQ 

9SU9dX9  99UJ0 

e»     1     1     1 

g 

o 

G 

■*     CM    "5    ■*    O 

IN 

t^ 

OS 

r-l 

00 

(h 

^uaui 

■*    O    ■*    H    CO 

*"" 

1-1 

OJ 

a 

-dinba  jo  asfi 

IN    CO    t--    115    IN 

CO 

co 

CO 

IN 

H    N    CN    to    t* 

■*  ■*  oo  •*  h  a  oo 

S9XBJ, 

H     CM    H    CO    CM 

6» 

»& 

o 

a 

3UU9AlJ9p 

if)    to    OO    N    * 

i<  co   a  co  io 

N    N    N    N    113    Oi    113 
O    OS    O    O    CM    i-H    a> 

OO 

OS 

g 

puB  'Suiqnq 

O!    O     H    IO    UJ 

o 
V 

'Sui^saAJBjj 

0»     ,_,      .+•      ,-H 

1-1     ^                                        ^ 

o» 

•>*<     CM    O    00    ■<*< 

rt   as  oo   cm   o   r^   o 

IC    N    N    ■*     rt    rj<    O 

t^ 

to    O    rt    to    N 

CO 

9jbo  99.IJ, 

to   i~-   us   CO   r— 

«s>                ^h 

6% 

l«    IM    W    00    » 

i— l    OS    00     CM     CM     "5    00 

N    <<    O    to    O 

CO    O)    T|l    00    *    h    CO 

IO 

aj^o  pog 

os   co   o   co   i-i 

CO    tO    t*<     ^H    tO    O    CO 

^H 

m  _,  ,_,  rH  ,H 

-'       ^  ^       ^  rt 

«« 

>*    N    U3    to    N 

O    CO    IN    CO    N    CO    O 

CM 

O    CO    m    h    CO 

„;   O     CN    CN    ■*     h 

O    CM     00    IO     OS    00    113 

spuoui 

[B  JO  PJ91A-  p^OJ, 

•O    to    tN    IN    ID    ■* 
►^    i-H               tO 

H     ^1     O     iH     CO                115 

O 
CO 

SpUOUl  p3 

■o 

113 

115                                       00 

113 
0O 

u! 

sajOB  jo  jaquin^ 

O     CM    O    i—i    U5 
O    h     N    N    ifl 

t"-    t^    115    O    O    OS    O 
•-I     CM     -<*l     CO     IO             tO 

as 

"O  a) 

'^'S  I 

fc!-Q 

8  g 

H    N    CO    ■*    "15 

tO    t^    00    OS    O    —1     CM 

II 

H        22 


F^ —      'O 


fl    o    ° 

^    J       CO 

■-     cs     C3 


«« 


S  o  o 

cu  a  a 

^q  a  a 

H  <{  «< 


36 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


puu;s  JO 

I 

aS^uaoaad 

00                                                IO 

00                                      cn 

»o 

Cn 

ess  a 

O  o  o 
en   en   en 

O 
cn 

a^VBunxoiddy  | 

W» 

So                              o 

O 

O    CT 

O             CN 

CM 

o 

Q 

"«  "~ 

*                                                                                T-l 

■""' 

"T1 

^H      00      ^H 

^ 

>> 

pq 

e 

OS 

CO 

O 

•Is 

,o   "5                                            OO 

00 

IO     C£ 

CO    CO    o 

oo 

03  CD 

~H     .-H     CM 

as 

OQ 

<»    1                                   1 

t(N                                                »0 

<i 

■^1      T| 

o 

cn 

^  o                                   oo 

oo 

CO     CC 

00    ■*    O 

"0 

^    i-H    CM 

s 

CO 

W 

^  t 

1                                                CO 

io 

■^     -^ 

CO    CM 

03 

73 

. 

X 

-    s  s 

u 

o 
u 

O 

* 
03 

m 
Q 

a              p; 

Ph 

H 

Phi 

X* 
CO 

Ph  a 

i^P- 
^  5?  ^ 

.4^3  EH 

PhH§^. 

H 

Ph* 

E- 

I_^ 

Q 

M   1- 

■     -r  m  Q 

^ 

a:  <"  b 

c 
c 

c 
(- 

03      . .      03         .    , — i                M     i>l     ,. 

o>    03    «- !     •    o     r   OT    •     03 

>>  g  >>«!      <j  2  «  g 

o 
co 

O    "- 

CO    cr 

o 

•T1   en  o 
o         en  ^   M 
7   co      r    J    J"  O 
4,    co    ^    <^    <J    CM 
CM             ^    co    rt|« 

C 

g  £  2  S      ^"o  §| 

en   <M 

IO 

cn 

"o~£c? 

SuU8Atpp 

CO    * 

oo 

. 

CM    CC 

t-~   »o   •>*< 

CO 

puB  Suipnq 

3  * 

^H 

-*< 

■^    Tf 

CO    CS    IO 

■^ 

'Sut^saAjBfj 

(uoi^bSuji  2ui 

od  cr 

-H 

■* 

co    ir. 

N    0O    N 

00 

^   m   S 

-p'npui)  aarao 

6  - 

co 

CO     1- 

CO      t^~      Ttl 

co 

ft|» 

aaj;  pUB  JlOg 

"H 

«   Si 

S-9  8 

punod 

■  oc 

o 

- 

■^<    cr 

as  ih   m 

IO 

jad  ^soo  r&jox 

S* 

■* 

23 

^h    oc 

C^     r- 

00     O0     CM 
CM    CN    »-H 

■«*< 

Co'    C 

CN 

03 

C<l    C 

■>*     -H     CO 

»o 

ajoi3  jad  ppi^ 

oo 

IO 

>o 

©    CC 
"0     CM 

CO    CO    "5 

H    H    N 

CN 

oc 

os 

CO 

rH     CC 

Tf< 

cr 

>o 

CO 

OO    c 

to    »   N 

!>. 

^soo  i«y>j, 

oo 

CO 

t^    CN 

00    CO    .-i 

co   co   co 

<M 

"0 

CC 

f^ 

^H 

CN       :    co 

00 

cc 

CM 

J3 
O 

asuadxa  aoujo 

d 

^ 

^uaui 

o 

CO    iC 

00    CC 

00    CO    o 
co   •*   t~- 

«0 

0 

c3 

-dmba  jo  asj^ 

d 

>o 

■^J    CC 

IC    »o    CO 

^ 

6»& 

C\ 

CN 

CO 

o   oc 

CO     CM    CN 

_, 

a> 

i^ 

00 

oo 

as  oc 

O   co   co 

CS1 

ft 

saxBx 

CS 

1-H 

^ 

rt       ,-H 

CN    CN    CN 

^i 

0) 

o 

03 

co 

co 

oo 

en   oo 

co 

o 

co 

t^    CN 

<u 

UOl^BglJJJ 

,_; 

ob 

r- 

co  d 

ft 

>* 

CO 

(0 

s 

S3 

SuuaAqap 

CC 

OO 

■* 

O    CS 

CM      ^H      -H 

o  m  to 

cn 

o 

o 

puB  Suqpiq 

d 

oo 

^H       C 

en   oo   co 

cn 

'Sui^saAjujj 

& 

rt 

CM 

1-1 

OS 

c^i    oo 

en   t^   «o 

>o 

CT2 

CM      i-H 

to    IO    IO 

>o 

ajBo  aaaj. 

CO 

CO    CM 

CM    CO 

CO 

cc 

00 

»o 

t^    00 

O    O    t^ 

cn 

cc 

oo 

O    CO 

CO    N    CO 

aiBo  pog 

1C 

t— 

co 

«5    ■>* 

>*    N    OO 

d 

es 

1-1 

CM     CN 

CN 

oc 

IO 

,_, 

r~   t^ 

CO    O    CN 

O 

.  cc 

CO 

^   to 

tO    N    N 

spuoui 

p3  jo  ppiA  i«}Ox 

2  o^ 
5- 

oo" 

io" 

CM 

iO    o 

o    O    ■* 
co   en  co 

00 

SpUOUl  p3 

o 

IO 

UI 

53J0B  jo  jaqum^ 

if. 

IO 

CO 
HO 

en  cn 

o   en   cn 
cn   co   en 

oo 

-d  S 

H 

CM 

CO 

-^c    io 

tO     N    0O 

cn 

il 

Bul,  422] 


COST    OF    PRODUCING    ALMONDS    IN    CALIFORNIA 


37 


pu^s  JO 

* 

aS^nsojad 

§           g  § 

C3i               OS 

a^Bunxoiddy 

«» 

05   e> 

»                     CM    O 

00    iC    CM 

*3 

P 

■<  - 

H                          1-H     ^H 

^h  y 

>> 

pq 

£ 

o 

_o  w 

^  cm                 r^   cm 

lO    lO    CO 

. 

'c?  03 

^H      CM      -H 

g£ 

co 

CM 

cS 

CO 

«  o               >c  >o 

1(1    U5    O 

«3     CM                          i-H     1-C 

i-l    CM    CM 

CO 

W 

Et,  m                 cm 

u 

a 

^     i       ;^ 

a 

6 

CO 

^  1  2  fc 

.2 
CP 

^;^0p 
pa  ^ 

> 

fc          Q  Q 

P            H  fc 

H 

1        CO 

i      ,— x                                           c 

O     OQ^ 

O      CD 
73    CO      CP 

d      S                                  >>     CO    ^ 

*H       K     H                             1        +J       O       CO 

co  03  H 
v  v  $, 

■       °     T-t     CO     ° 
P      CO    2    -1     <M 

>>s    O 

00  2  u 

bJ)    <n   co                ©  «*-      .     cp 

t,        1                         ^H       C3      (h      cu 

■g     ^  £                   O     M    ^   -J3 
S   3                         ^   ^    S 

a  ~                 cm  — ■"  '^ 

M    P>> 

w     CP                                            O 

§UIJ8Aipp 

•  en                 rt    00 

^                     CM 

^ 

pire'Suipnij 

ft    CM                      CM    CO 

©                      CM 

■* 

o  2  a 

'Sui^s'aAi'Bjj 

(uoi^bSijji  §ui 

o,-    CJ>                     CD    00 

CM                     © 

© 

fta^ 

-p'npiii)  ajBo 

?t    CD                     M    N 

OS                          l-i 

00 

S-3  a 
a  c  m 

98J^  pUB  pog 

punod 

CO    ^ 

■*    CO 

©                      © 

lO 

J8d  ^SOD  p^oj, 

C  « 

US     © 

03                     t^ 

lf< 

~    t-                    CM    t~ 

CO                      02 

o 

8J013  JOd  ppi^ 

Soo               i-   © 

J2  "**            ■*  w 

iH                             © 

o 

CO 

©    CM 

©                             © 

© 

CM 

CO    CM 

^H                             CO 

© 

jsod  [^oj. 

CD 

uo   ci 

CM    "O 

t^                      CM 
CM                      t^ 

co 

t& 

» 

©  r~- 

© 

CO    CM 

co 

asuadxa  aoijjo 

CM 

© 

«■ 

r-    CO 

»o                 00 

o 

^usui 

c- 

CO   •** 

CM                      CO 

© 

03 

-dmba  jo  asfi 

^      --H 

cm                r^ 

lO 

(h 

5 

u: 

05     i-l 

CM                    © 

00 

03 

CM 

00    •* 

©                © 

a 

saxtfj. 

CM 

rt   co 

CM                      i-H 

CM 

cp 

O 
ccj 

a% 

:    O 

■* 

:    ia 

■* 

00 

0) 

Tioi^eSuij 

■*! 

© 

a 

CO 

1c 

CM 

«*» 

SuuaAijap 

oe 

©    CO 
©   r— 

CM                          i-H 

CO 

O 

puB  Suipnq 

11 

©     O 

0O                      -H 

CM 

'Sut^s9A.rep[ 

e«i 

CM 

CM 

c» 

Q 

Oi    CD 

«5                      CO 

■f 

CM 

O    CM 

CM                     CO 

axeo  aaaj. 

r^ 

CO    CM 

if                     OO 

CO 

<*t 

«# 

CO 

>0    CM 

©                      t^ 

© 

CM 

t^    » 

©                                Tf 

axso  po^ 

cc 

00    i-H 

00                      © 

© 

co 

1—  © 

00    CO 

i-H                             i— 1 

00 

.    CM 

lO                 to 

© 

spuoui 

[B  jo  ppiA"  jt^oj. 

co   CX) 

3- 

IC    CO 

0O                     if" 

OO 

J* 

^H 

rH 

SpUOUipB 

CM 

t^ 

UI  i 

3iov  jo  jgqtun^j 

^ 

CO    CM 
CO    CM 

^H                             © 

©                     CO 

CM 

00 

iO 

-c  S 

oW  73    cp 

^     cp     « 

fcJa 

on   +i.  M 

Ofi 

o 

i-H    CM 

CO                       Tf 

-  J    g  ^ 

l§ 

O     cp     > 
H     ^     C3 

c3 

t3 

p 

CO 

p 

03 
cp 

•^ 

M 

d 

cS 

cp     cp 

CO 

43   £ 

a 

o    o 

fl 

-^    T3 

3 

-C     c3 

bB    <U 

o 

S   a 

— h       CO 

-^    CO 

bfi    M 

coH 

03     03 
>      > 
cS    03 

CP    ._ 

03      03 

S      S 

>>H-1 

'£  'S 

-2 

o    o 

|4         ^C 

a  a 

J3-CI 

a  a 

M 

<  < 

-»—  ■*-+ 

CO 

X! 

CO 

38 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


T3 

03 
A 
o 

o 

puB^s  JO 
a-j'Buiixojddy 

*C    O    iO    o    *o    iC    o 

05      00      OS      05      OS      CT>      Oi 

m    CO    O     CO    O    CO 

0)0)03    0)00    01 

O 
OD 

>> 

_o 

"o 

CO 

o> 

N 

02 

UK 

P 

pq 

Inches 

10-12 

12 

10-12 

12 

10-12 

12 

4-6 

6-8 

O                 :     O    O    O    t- 

CO        :    O0    CO    oo 

CG 

^,-^OOOUOOOCMOO 

»TH(NrH(N^rHrHrH 

18 
12-18 

14-15 
40 

12-14 
18 

S 

^tOOCMCMOOCMCMOO 
fcl 

16 
15-20 

16-18 

25-30 

12-16 

14 

CO 

.2 

I,  NP,  D,  N,  T 

I,  N,  P 

I,  N,  NP,  D,  G 

D,  NP,  I,  G,  N,  T 

T,  N,  D 

N,  T,  D,  P,  I 

T,  N,  D,  G,  P 

3 

©         £         Pm 

H-  Q  Q  H  P"  0  Q 
m*  fc  H  fc  H  fc  fc 

03  «  is 

cu  «  £ 

18 

40 

16 
12-16 

18 

14 
12  A.,  5 
41  A.,  20 

>n 

CM 

^lO      O      H      O      N      H       H 

3^  ° 

o  £  a 
1-3  a 

m  §  « 

0-33 

SuiJ3AIJ9p 

pu'B  Suqpiq 
'Sui^saAxejj 

•OONOJNU51DOO 

rt^HOCMio-^T-H-^i 

CM    OS    CM     -H    >-l    t^    t^ 

o 

CO    ^    W    ifl    «)    •*    w 

(uoi^Suji  §UT 
-pnpui)  9.rea 
99J^  pu^  JlOg 

Cts. 
26.2 
39.0 
2.5 
7.1 
2.4 
2.7 
16 

■*     H    OO    00    115    IN    IN 
O     CM     CM     CM    »C    CO    CM 

oo 

punod 

J9d  ^SOO  P3JOJL 

v    N    X             ^H 

CO    CO    CO    CO    CO    C^    Oi 

2 

O)    O)    N    N    N    O)    O) 
-H                      -H    CO 

9J013  jad  pjst^ 

C.-OCMCOI^OCOOO 

J?l003-<tic©»OCOCO 
J2                     l«    IN    N    r|i    ^ 

CM    m    CD    CO    m    00    CO 
OO    CT>    00    CD    CD    O     •<* 
CM     ^    O0    CM             ■>*    CO 

CM 

OS 

CO 

A 
Q 

3 

03 
t-, 

<0 

a 

<B 

(H 
O 

03 
CD 

a 

CO 
CO 

o 

o 

^SOO  IB^OX 

$37.05 
74.81 
42.69 
46.50 
65.17 
78.89 
39.92 

M    ^    iO    OO    N    N    N 
IN    OO    O)    ^    IN    ^1    rt 

CO 

io  m  oo   cn  ■*   oi  * 

IO    Tf     CO    CO    CM    CO    CO 

8SU9dX9  991JJO 

$0.28 
.13 

.39 
.42 

1.00 

.20 

.67 
.13 

OS 

o 

")U9UI 

-dmb9  jo  9sq 

$2.45 
4.39 
2  15 
2.74 
1.09 
4.76 
3.02 

.63 
6.51 

.84 
2.32 

CO 

o 

CO 

m 

co 

ssxbj. 

o   r-   oo   o   t~-   cm   co 
cm   oo   t—   ©   o  ir^  i-H 

'Jl    N    tJI    tJI    o    CD    IN 

•>*i     t--    CM     CD    O    O     "-< 

OS     i-H     CM     IO     CO     T)H     00 

•n 

CO 
CO 

CO    T)H    CO    CO    CM    CD    CM 

uoi^Sujj 

O    O    rh    O    O    m    m 
O    OO    CO    ■*     -^     CM    CM 

CO    CO    CO    in    CD    CD    CD 

O    O    O    ^     ^ 
CO     CM    O    ^H     CM 

»    CO    CO    N    CO 

o 
m 

CM 

o 
m 

SuiJ9AlJ9p 

puBSui^nq 
'Sui;s9ajbh 

$10.99 
9.87 
15.57 
15.35 
33.57 
21.57 
21.23 

O    *    N    CO    CO    N    o 
■*    CN    W    C3    M    N     O) 

CO 
00 

•n 

r^  •<*<   co  co  co   o>  cm 

H      CM      CM      -H                  _l      ^H 

9JB0  99JJ, 

M     NCO    O    N     <l     N 
CO    O     Oi    in    CO    IO     Oi 

1(3    CO             CO    Tt<    CM    CM 

e©  i-i                       cm 

o  o   o   cm   oo   co   m 
o   m  o  o  r~-  co  co 

^1      M      ^      H      rt     tN      H 

CO 

9JB0  J  lOg 

$7.78 
17.81 
12.82 
15  51 
13.37 
16.66 
3.93 

25.24 
7.07 

20.85 
6.36 
8.29 

10.80 
6.42 

CO 
OS 

epuoui 

IB  JO  PI9IA"  JBtJOJ, 

Lbs. 

905 

832 

20,340 

8,018 

8,995 

18,626 

26,298 

2,816 
9,909 

12,397 
6,573 
2,907 
6,116 

27,702 

CM 

m 

UI 

SpUOUip3 

39J01B  jo  jgqum^j; 

oo 
co  o>   r--  o   cm   co   o 

^h             M    CC    rt    rt    CO 

o  o  ■"*<   m   m  m  o 

rt     N     H     IN     T*     H     00 

oo 
oo 

00 
CO 

13  fe 

W  3 

H    tN    «    ^    W    IO    N 

00    O)    O    h    N    CO    f 

Totals  & 

weighted 

averages 

14 

oo    17 


c    a>         cp 


-C 

s 

a 

T3 

•• 

09 

j 

O 

x 

O 

1— i 

>, 

d 

-ji 

-c 

3 

ID 

T3 

-o 

O 

03 

O 

O 

CD 

44 

O 

Bt 

0 

T3 

p 

d 

crt 

M 

0 

T1 

- 

d 

_r   S 


-d 

"o 

2P  £ 

a) 

A    « 

0 

is     03 

3 

3 

>     > 

co 

cS    03 

•O 

L 

<v 

^ 

a  a 

rt 

>i 

x    X 

44 

6 

a  a 

A 

a  a 

H 

<  < 

525 

* 

-t—  ++ 

Bul.  422] 


COST    OF1    PRODUCING    ALMONDS    IN    CALIFORNIA 


39 


1 

pu«-Ts  JO 

92^u90J9d 

©cor^ooo«ooo>o         oo»o 

a^uiTxojddy 

*" 

*o 

Q 

SocMOOCNCNOCMOcMcMcM© 

■S77H"7777" 

1       1       1 

>> 

PQ 

;;00O                      O    ©    OO    OO    00 

s. 
11 

!-l                   *"'                                 rtH 

rt 

,^-<*i©OOOOIOCM»0©>OOOOOCO-hh 

02 

V            1             1       1                    1 

■*    (M    IN 

o 

03 
CD 
N 

33 

rt  ^  rt 

^■«tlTt<COOOCOOOCO©CO©©OOcO 

s3 

T3 

W 

Et,  cm  oo         in         lOioom^toi'iN 

ts 

bi     : 

s3 

C      in 

J3 
o 

O 

03 

03 

NP,  T,  I,  D,  N 
N,  T,  D 
N,  NP,  T,  D 
N,  NP,  D,  P,  I 
T,  D,  N 
I,  N,  T 
I,  N,  T,  D 
D,  I 

T,  N,  NP     You 
Old 
N,  T,  I,  NP 
J,  NP,  N,  D,  T 
N,  D,  G,  T,  NP 

Id 

£   £ 

O    (C    CO 

■*                                             ^  o 

03    03    H 
03    <D    S 

OCO'H^Hrt'_lt^^H           --                t-H      rH 

<< 

JC    ht. 

o  g  ft 
a  a  >-, 
haS 

«T3  ft 

ft  g    03 

SuuaAijap 

^•CDCDN^NCDrtt-Oi                CO     CM     rH 

r^ 

puB  Suiqnq 

rtN^^ONM^INlO             -*    lO    CO 

'Sui^S8ajbjj 

(uoi^Suji  Sui 

•eot^o«oo«C'-it>-t- 

rH     o     OS 

t- 

-pnpui)  9XB9 

^IOtJ<-^^COCOC«3CNI^ 

•<*< 

99JT  pUB  JLOg 

1-1 

punod 
jad  ^soo  p3Toj, 

,;<DNT»ON01H^a 

(N    Ol    Cl 

0O 

NHCONnOlHONCO             l^    .— I    CO 

Oi 

,;    Ifl     O     U5     r- 1     rH     CM     i— 1     ©     CC 

gjo'B  jad  PJ9JA 

CO    CM    lO 
T-l     i-l    O0 

co 

CO 

r~>ocot---Hior^iocc 

t^ 

^eCONOllNtD'llr- 

OO    Cft    IN 

t- 

^soo  p^oj. 

ONOlNMlOOOtOif 
O0T)lN©CDrtO00O« 

M>                                                    ^H 

co   oi  ai 

00    CO    "O 

CM 

CO 

o  i>-  »o 

U-J 

O        :    «3    U3 

ONrt 

t^ 

9SU9dX9  901JJO 

CO       :    ra    15 

o 

J3 

c* 

*• 

•"tfl    ©    CO        :    m    »    ID    oo    a 

Cft    CO    Oi 

o> 

■JU9UI 

N    N    N         :    U5     O)    11    00    c 

«-i    CM    •* 

o 

C 
S3 

-dmbg  jo  9sf) 

O    K)    Tf         :    «    W    CO    N    ^ 

S%                                                          T-l                                 I- 

CM    CO    CO 

CO    CO    lO 

03 
ft 

ooio-rf-H^ocoi^-ior^ 

©    ©    «5 

sgx'Bx 

CM     CM    CM 

CO 

a 

«#      rH 

as 

©©»o-*ti©»oco©cc 

rn    lO    -«f 

■>*< 

o 

uoi^Sujj 

OmON^N'flOlIN 

CO     CO     CO 

oi 

m 

CO 

O 

o 

G% 

SUU9AI]9p 

MrtHc<3NWT(lOOM 

0O    U3    O) 

io   ■*   co 

CM 

puB  Suqjnq 

©coacof^-^cOrHu-j 

en    co    co 

co 

'SUI^S9AJ'BJ[ 

NrttOnHMMMIN 

<— !0-*cMI^<00500t 

CO    O    00 

119 

co»o©a.>cococirHr>. 

t»    O    CO 

CM 

9XB0  99JX 

iDcoiOHioiomoos 

CO    ©    !>• 

OJ 

CO 

CO     iH    U5 

f~00©rHHiOCM©CM 

O    CO    CO 

o 

H»HN*0)H^M 

OHO 

CM 

e» 

4© 

©OSlOCOCOOOiOcN© 

f-    CO    Tt< 

rH 

spuoui 

[B  JO  ppiA  JBJOJ, 

cc    »0    lO    ■*     CM_    CM    CO     CO    !>•__    O- 

S    ^"  V   ©    OO    w"   OO    N    H    t(( 

CO    CO    OO 
rH    oT   IC 

oo 

CO" 

1—1 

SpUOUip3 

rHCO©»«©a5©©rH 

O    "5    "J 

CM 

UI  f 

jgjDB  jo  jgqum^ 

N      H      1-1      M      <N                  CM      -H      tH 

h    N    CO 

CO 

T3fe 

=3-g    S 

H-S 

to    -2     M 

gTj 

■^   J5     03   m 

43    § 

•ih    .5?     03    '"' 

O      OJ      > 

5  Q 

S3       - 


73     S3     5     £ 
3      A     O     © 

O     .2      03      « 


O      03      (U      CP 


Pm  H  <j  <j 


40 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


pu^s  JO 
a^unxoaddy 


O     Oi    OS    03    O}    00 


CM    ©    00    CM 


CM     CM     CM     CM    ©    ©    -<*l 
©    ©    ©     OS  © 


<M  rt 


CM    CM     CM    ©    CO 


*    *    "O    * 


<N    *-<    t-i    r-l    CM    CM 
•>*<    <M    in    00    -<*< 


CO    co    CO    >C 


co   in   Tf<   ■>* 


Ph 

Ph*0 


H 
Ph" 
P 

Ph* 


pP 


Ph     : 


Ph  W 

*5      p; 

Ph_  q  Q  ^  Q  £  fc 

P*  p^  Ph*  Q  Ph*  ^  ^ 

£  £  £  Ph*  m"  P  H 

m'  £  m  fc  fc  H  5 


Ss 


CO    o 

i4 


r  <*<  -  <j  <1 


6     .8 


8    1 


3-2  3 
3^  ° 

o  £  a 
a  a  J* 


0^3 


SuuaAijgp 
put?  'Suipnq 

'SUI^SSAI'BJJ 


co   co   co 

N    lO    CO 


t-         t^  © 

r-l  CO      M 


lO    CO    CT5    CO    CM    in    m 


(UOl^SUJI  Sui 

p'npui)  axed 
aaj^  puB  pog 


O   co   -h    m   co 

N    M    d    «    H 


CM    CM 


O0    O0    m    O    OO    CO    !>. 

co  to   >*   n   n  n  in 


punod 
jad  ^soo  ps^o  ,£ 


N   <D   o    n   to 


CO    CM 
CM    m 


m    O    i-H    -^    ^H    CM 
CM     ^H    CO    CO    00    OJ 


ajoB  jad  piaiA 


M  <*  CB  !D  M  i-h 
>*  to  to  H<  N  m 
CO  m  CO     CO     CO 


-cH  -h  oo  co  co  r- 
cm  -^  t*<  t^  r^  o 

lO  CM  »-l  CO  in  CO 


^SOD  Jl^OJ, 


CO  <— i  CO  i— l  lO 

»  •*  tO  N  S 
H  U5  ^  H  m 


asuadxa  aoqjo 


-dmba  jo  a$[\ 


« 

— 

CO 

i- 

O 

00    m 

_ 

o  m 

o  m 

:    m 

■* 

oa 

CO- 

m  c 

-h    r— 

CM     CM 

IQ 

T-I 

CO 

ON 

-H     CN 

CM    lO 

:    |>- 

sax'BjL 


CM     33    CO    CO    CO 
N    tO    N    N    N 

CM    CM    CM     CM     CM 


Ol    CB  O)    IN    ffl    115    OS    CO 

CMCM  CMCMCMCOCMCM 


uoi^Sujj 


SU!J8Aipp 

pins'Sinqriq 
'Sut^sbAjBH 


CM     t^ 

00     CT> 

CM    CM 


ih     00 
CO    CO    oo 


CO     CM 

OO     Oi 

1— I   t^- 


CO     TjH     OS     OS     CO     CO 

o   ai  co  cn i  •**<   cb 


31130  88.1  J, 


CO    ■*  1^    -^ 

th    in  -h    CM 


t^    CO    to    CM 

to  o  ■*  « 

'    CO    N    15 


8J130  JIOg 


m     CM    CO    CM    © 
CM     -cH     03    CM     CM 


Tf    K5    U5    CO 
N    M    N    OO 


CO    CO    CD    OO    in 


SpiIOUipS  JO  PJ3TA"  pJ^OJ, 


cm  i— i  co  io  co  oo  t*- 

co  t-i  co  m  co  co  r— 

•*  oo  »  ■*  to  q  q 

era  ■**  cm"  i-^  OO  CO  tM 


epuouipe 
ui  S9J0B  jo  jaquin^ 


co  co         ooooomocM 

i— I    .-H  i— I     CM     CM    CM    >— I    >— l    CM 


co  -*t<   m   co   t^ 


S§ 


Bui*  422] 


COST    OF    PRODUCING    ALMONDS    IN    CALIFORNIA 


41 


pu^s  JO 

9§13}U90J9d 

OaiOOOcOCOlOt^cOlOOOOOt^OO 

g^uiixoaddy 

^CMC»CMCM©00©©OOOCM<NlcNI 

*S 

P 

■«  T       7  T  71  t  "                    H7  T  7 

^  O           ©    ©    CO    00                                             ooo 

>> 

PQ 

KtH            -i    *H 

03  0) 

03 

© 

cc 

~    .— 1     T-l     .— <     i— (,-1.— lr-<>-(i-<.— l.-lT-l.-ttM'-H 

T*<COCOlOcOO»i5CO<OcOcOOO>CiOO© 

oj 
"9 

Kj 

w 

«7T77H777TT'i  T  7T  7 

^    CM    "*l    -<*l    <M             ■*'(lU3-*T(lll5O'>tl»00 

o3 

o 

p 

O 

*                                             Oh"                                            H 

.2 

fc  hh      H  P  P  P  &              H      H  £ 

03 

J  *  £  *  fc"  £  fc  H  £  ^  J  £        £    - 

QZZZZZZZZZ'zz,*-;*^ 

O  03  "g 

-&    CM             CM 

03  S  03 

__^Hrt__rtoi_(_^H,_,,?0rHr_ 

Suu3Ai|ap 

pire  Suijjnq 

gmiONONNOO^t-MHtDWNlO 

»c 

'SUI^S9AJ'BJJ 

9XB0 

^NOO^*0)MI»lO00NM»N» 

CO 

£-3  a 
a  c  « 

99J^  pUB  ]IOg 

glBNHtOO^'tOlONOMW             CM 

■* 

punod 

^•CO^SOCOCOlOlOCDOOCOt^OSCOOiCO 

05 

J9d  ^SOO  J^JOJ, 

o 

•ooi^-iof^r^i-^asr^ioascocMioor-^ 

9J013  J9d  ppiA 

2    N     IN    !D                               _     ^h    _     _             lO    CO    ©    CO 

o 

CO 

COt~»OCMCOlO>OCOa}COr>-CO©CDCM 

US 

%SO0  p^OJ, 

COCOCOCNli-l>-H-'*<<N(NICMCM»OCO-*llO 

co 

«/» 

s# 

Tt< 

,_, 

9SU9dX9  soyjo 

a 

«© 

&* 

N    O    Ol 

b 

1U9UI 

o 

t-  to 

CO 

m    »H 

o 

© 
a 

0) 

-dmb9  jo  9s(i 

6d> 

^~ 

CM 

^  o>  « 

CM 

■»*lcO©->!*<T*<TMcO-*lcDcO-*<->*<^HrtcO 

<M»0<MCMCMcNI*OCMIO»OCMCM©'>*<tH 

co 

03 
(4 

© 

a 

S9XBJ, 

cm 

©S 

s» 

SuiJ9Aipp 

o-H-Hico300,>*ii^«r)05»coooco 

>— ICOCOCCCO-H10COOOCN|COCO©COCO 

s§ 

03 

puB  'Stnqnq 

MNOON^tOWNr- 1    03    ©    CO    CM    ©    CO 

g 

o 

'Sui'JS9AJ'BfJ 

»-H     i— C     T- 1                                 CO              i-H              i— I     CO     <-l     CM     CO 

ee 

-HCOOOOlOCMI^ 

00    M    OO    ■* 

i^. 

l005©-"*i©t^<M© 

N    tC    0O    0O 

o 

9J130  99J J, 

<M   r~  -*   co   t4         cm   ^h 

tS    N             lO 

CO 

COCOOOOOCOOt^.005000"5»0 
«00»©0©iO»0©Tt<iOI^©rtOOr^ 

CM 

9ai3o  pog 

HNfflfflOWlONOOMOlOHON 

6© 

«0 

05GOCMCOCOCMOOCT>-^lcOC<l02i-lI>-0 

kOira©l^©CJ>©<OiOt^CM^-*ct^© 

c^r-icj20-^,c^iocooa>^-iooo2t^-<tio 

spuotu 

p3  JO  ppiA  p3^0X 

*    tO    N    115             HNH^NNHiOONO 
l»3    1-H                                                                                                                                   i-H     ■»* 

SpuOUip3 

i— <iOOO©00-^aiOOOi©Oi©OOCM© 

f^      CO                 H      H      (N                 (NrtNHrHrHHtO 

CO 

UI 

39jo'B  jo  i9quin^ 

CO 

•gs 

. 

oH    T3      03 
03     -2       bS 

8  p 

i-INM'(llO»N00010HNC<3'*lO 

-3  J    S   >o 
|  .«*   &   - 

o    a>    > 
H     ^    C3 

£g 

•^   a 

6  § 


.  pm 


Si 

-fix 


CD 

Q 

on 

cj 

Q 

03 

> 

t- 

§ 

UJ 

o 

83 

PI 

V 

DO 

© 

c-f 

7i 

+3 

^ 

= 

"o 

O 

H 

+j 

>d 

j 

C3 

-d 

=i 

u 

m 

-c 1 

X! 

^ 

o 

© 
b£. 

3 
03 

te 

© 

> 

> 

o 

o 

fl 

0 

© 

_o 

33 

B3 

« 

>. 

^ 

0 

Q 
(La 

a 

a 

X3 

a 

a 

o 

H  <  <5 

Z  *    h- 


42 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


pm^s  JO 

aSi^uaojad 

©05COCT5CT>0001©0 

apsunxoaddy 

'■"' 

ucn 

Sn^inoooohoo 

o 

Q 

gj    O     <M             00                      O             00 

>> 

pq 

o 

^■>*IO<MOOOOOOOCOO 

*o 

CO 
N 

S3 

m 

It1MtOOO!OtOO')iintD 

.^lOOOOOOOCDOOiOOO 

<»-HCNCNl^-(-H^H^H^H^H 

c3 

a 

Et,(M0000»O-<*i»raira^-tff 

T3 

s 

£ 

J3 

2 

* 

Ph 

o 

2 

£ 

^  Plh  Q        Q  -  0;  Q 

c3 
> 

.   _?  fc   hhQ^HQ   W 

O    03    to 

CO    «    £ 

^ioooo^V00© 

(N-l<«-H'-|-'0             -1 

o  co-d 

3^  © 

oga 

SuuaAijap 

^KJNMNflO^I^OOO 

puis  Suipnq 

N^eN^MMN^* 

'Sui;s8ajbh 

(uoi^eSuji  Sui 

^•NMrt^lIJOioON 

t^ 

hfflS 

-pnpin)  axBO 

fjNlOMH^n^O'* 

_; 

88J^  pUB  {IOg 

1-1 

punod 
jad  ^soo  i^ox 

•isoiNinnHONoo 

O                 ^Hrt                 _      _<      ^      _      (^ 

•NWlONINNINrHrt 

ajOB  aad  pjaiA 

5-^00l0l0i0-H0iO«0 

<M 

•>*<<?OCMOCO-'*<cOtOCD 

-*l 

^SOD  p;OX 

6© 

ft© 

00 

9su9dxa  aoyjo 

o 

6© 

o 
ft© 

r-    cc 

t--   io   »-h   oo  r- 

^U8UI 

<-l      «5 

i-H     lO     t~~     ■*     CD 

n 

-dmba  jo  asfl 

CM    OO 

6© 

H     N     N    U!     N 

6© 

OiOlOCDO^O^HO 

CD 

OOtDnCOOONlONiC 

a 

saxuj^ 

o 

ft© 

s© 

■*OilONN00lMINlO 

COt^OJCOOSCDOilOt^ 

CO 

co 

uot^guaj 

lOOO»OCOt-r^cDCOO> 

t^ 

go 

ft© 

«© 

Suu8Ai|ap 

<MOOr^oOOCN»OOOiO 
(M^HOOt^CMOiOiOCO 

lO 

o 

puis  Suipnij 

©CT>OiT*CO->tlCOOi© 

co 

'Sui^saAjBjj 

ff)      H      rt      ^1      H      H      M                 ^ 
6© 

6© 

0000©->*<OC0Tt<r^© 

t-iooco'-HO-^ascoo 

s 

8J130  88JJL 

COrHHCONOlHlOO 

"*< 

ft© 

t^r^-^COOOCMOOO 
t^CNOCMOTtlCN^HO 

CD 

8ji30  pog 

oococD-*-ct<»o©»oi-~ 

CO 

e© 

ofOOoiNcqNra 

Tf< 

.Tt<t^ioOOtOcOC3-«tl 

spuoui 

[B  jo  ppiA1  p^OJj 

Jj    00    i-H    t-T    t~-"    <M~   >o"   ■*"    U5    !D 

oo 

SpUOUI  p3 

©cDt^t^cD-^cnoio 

oo 

UI  s 

8J013  jo  jaquin|sj 

CM 

T3fe 

^      CO      CO 

feJS 

§1 

HNn<*iO»M»0> 

|  .3>  8 

mi 

o    a>    > 

03  O 

GO   GO  u 

CO   CO  S 

CO   CO  -2 

J-   t-  CO 


£  s 

"  o  o  « 

T  ■«  T)  -5 


^    o 


5   .S 


_JV   £   CO   CO   CO 

JPIII 

cj  Q  '*  '*  "S 
S  o  o  o 
-*     t_,  s_  t-. 

CO      —  —  — 

-a  a  a  a 
H   <<< 


Bui*  422] 


COST    OF    PRODUCING    ALMONDS    IN    CALIFORNIA 


43 


puu^s  JO 

1 

8S'B'}U80J9d 

«50iC»lO»tO<*COlOC<)0)l»fflt<! 

ayeunxojddv 

«« 

>oa 

Snnonon^inooo^oon 

o  o  c 

o 
>> 

£                                                        CM    O    OO                      CM             OO    O 

o 

"-"                                                                   ^     ^                                     ^                          ^H 

^>OOOlCOOCM«5Tf<OOCNOOOOO-* 

O    00    oc 

»N«rtNHeq«C<lHNNINHNN 

«       H       T- 

aj 

o 
en 

CD 

DQ 

^oooo^ntooooootoooo         co   co  o 

lO    to    IC 

^lOCNIOOiOCCCNlOCNlOOOOCMOO-* 

OO    OO    CC 

acNCM-HKIrtlMCONrtCNINCNIlNININ 

u 

W 

w 

Ee,         oo  io   o   >o   co         coiooocoooio© 

lO    *0    "* 

„ss            »-                i  i 

Xi 

„ 

**~-           H-            n|| 

O 

.£ 

o3 

> 

_I  Ok       Ph  Ph  ^"  M  ^  Q  0  M  Q  ^"  Ph" 

fc  £  p- 

fcfcfcfcfcfcfcfcw-hHfcfcfcfc 

£  H  fc 

N    N     "5                                        O                                                -1     <» 

O   03    g 

CD    «    £ 

•a^^HHHHjjHHHHrt^^ 
CO      CM      ^                                                     '""'                                                                 — .     ,-. 

co   co 

s  ^  O 

SuiJ3Aipp 

•^NMCO^O^lONONtOH* 

CO    o    <= 

pu«  Suinrnj 

2"5CqC<l'*T)H^i3>COC<l'*^CO'*M 

CO    115    (C 

■<* 

'Sui^saAXBH 

(uoip33u.ii  §ui 

^^NN*NH^00<OOl(O*T(IN 

t-    CM    C 

h  09  n 

cut;  a 

-pnpui)  9jbo 

NNO«H(l3»Hf)H             cq    ■*    ■*    -H 

CM    t-h    r- 

CO 

99X}  pU'B  pog 

punod 

^aoONONOHOlOHilNcOMO 

t^    t^    ■* 

CO 

oil 

J9d  ^SOO  I&JOJ, 

f!M(N<ONO)INnN<OWNart© 
O    CM     i-H                                     rt     — 1                                                          r^ 

O    CO    t- 

00 

JNM^<HNtOOO'*(NT|IOCI^lO 

9J013  J9d  PI9T^ 

^(NHHOloONMrtNINOONlON 

cq   io   r- 

Cft    CM     C 

Oi 

rt  >- 

OHONOlNNNlOINlOMTJliO 

CM     CO    C- 

lOCOtOOOOOCOcOCMiOr-HCOO-tflt^ 

o  o  o- 

CO 

isoo  p^oj, 

©COOOI-^OOOOr^C©COCO©->*lOO© 

00    ■*     ^- 

(0-*©<DNO)'*00'*0'*NC1U3 

t^ 

CO 

CO 

CO    CO    CO 

9SU9dX9  99IJJO 

o 

d 

t>-    CM    -^ 

CO 

cpiaui 

O       :tCC»i01!0»hi>c<3 

o  o  o 

OS 

00 

-dmb9  jo  9Sf| 

6% 

•»*    CO    >c 

r^ 

MHiOMH>*T((lsafflMWOW 
OOCM»C>©CMCOCOt*i©©cOCO-«*<CO 

CO     CO     CC 

<d 

89XBX 

ONO»NNNlOMWtO(OlOe 

CO    »0    »T 

(II 
i-, 
o 

OS 

e© 

e» 

t^ 

O 

00 

0) 

UOH'BSu.IJ 

,_; 

^ 

a 

CO 

69 

§UU9Atpp 

-*     ^    li" 
O    cn    cc 

OOlOrt^O^NNMnUJOOCt* 

0 

puB  Suipnq 

COOlO-HOOWCNlOOiOOCOOOCOCO 

OO    CM    CS 

!>- 

'3uns9Axejj 

HCON^WMW^H^weqNN 

CO 

lO    O    00    Ol    OO    CO    CC 

^t< 

•^     t-<     t^     ^H     O     CO 

*    O    00    ■*    113    O    © 

N    CO    « 

CO 

9.1139  99JX 

O     t"-     *-H     t^-     i-H     lO 

*    i(    CO    CO    CO    CS    N 

CO 

CM    CO    CM             CM     CM 

CM                      CO    CM    ^H 

&% 

CO©COCMt-r^iO©lOCO©«5©T-< 
COOCOCMt^COt^OCM->*OCMOCO 

«o    00    C 

00 

9J139  pog 

HaMOtDO^OONN^HOlO 

6© 

t© 

.t^-^CO-^iOOOOOOOCMCMCOOOi-c 

spuoui 

V3  J°  Pl9!^  T^°X 

DOiHIDNOOOlCliCOlMiOOOJlO 
5    N    b-"   N    CO    (N    M    lO    TjT   •*"   O    115    rt    ■*    ffi 
H             r-t.-l             rtCM             COCM'^CM'-H             TJH 

o    O    t> 

CM     CM    y- 

CO 

SpUOUl  p3 

i— llOC005iO©cOOlOCOTt<lOOO© 

»o   00   c 

UI 

sgjo'e  jo  i9qum^ 

CO     rt     H                HMHCOWMHH                CO 

OO 

co 

•d-a 

=8  "d   ffi 

fe-Q 

co   +j    oil 

a-l 

CM    C 

>4 

tf5     CO     t> 

oc 

OS    c 

o 

c 

T* 

« 

CC 

t- 

o  »   > 

H     ^    03 

o    ■- 

0>      oc 

^  I 

H 

s  p; 
I  ^ 


O    S 


ss 

<l 

Is 

o3     T 

w  ^ 

o   « 

>>  ■_: 

CD 

.3  m 

fl 

■p  a 

c3 

-3 

O     o3 

-3   i1 

**  « 

a) 

a  - 

cv! 

2Q 

U 

-fcS 

S    o 

rt 

CP    *« 

CO 

CO 

CD 

o     g 

CD 

t-< 

13     to 

9    a 

O 

1  5 


h    4J   p  -p 


44 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


piIB^S  JO 

aSi^uaojad 

Ol    D    00    00             I--CO             OOOOOCfcf^OkO 

a^'Buiixojddv 

rH 

•* 

eos 

S    IN    O    (N    'S'             (NO             OCMOCNCMOOCM 

o 

Q 

£  O          O   00                 oooo                oooo 

■Is 

,-(                             ^ 

«    N    M    O    Til             OO    O             OOCOOOOOOO 

"o 

CO 

CO 

Et,    OO    -<*<    CO    OO             ts    OO             COO^IOOOlOOOOO 

«    IN    OO    00    ffl             OO             OOCMOOOOOOOOO 

c3 
"o3 

T3 

CO 

W 

<0      1        1         1        1                  II                  1         1         1         1         1         1         1         1 

fe,    oo    to    to    CO            00    lO            COCOOOCOCOCO»OCO 

13 

Ph"          h          c 

Ph               fc  fH 

o 

.2 

H-    * *i    ~  *■ 

"        Q        P  Ph  %  g  £ 

p:  p  a;  q  »  5  p  » 

.22 

P  P  *  P      ~  p. 

c3 
> 

eC  h  ^  <^     P  * 

**-«    tf- 

-     fc  m  fc    - «  h  _r  « 

-       .       .  Ph        -       -       -  P-l 

£  £  Q  £        M-  JZ 

Jz;£:z;;z;QQ££ 

O     i-H                C 

>o 

O    (D    g 

1-1   o                                  >c   oo 

02  S  S 

7  k, 

*        •?U)OMNWt?V 

m  ^  a? 

-h  n<;<; 

<j^£ 

ON 

CO                ^J 

CO    ^ 

O   a,  T3 

SuuaAipp 

NMNNOOIOON 

puB  Sninnq 

^  co  co  oo  oc 

OlOCMC003CO»Ot^ 

'Sui^saAj-Bjj 

^ 

(uoi^bSuji  Sui 

CO 

^» 

-pnpui)  axeo 

£^    i-i    O    •<*    C 

CM    tr 

<M<Mi-H^HCOi-IT*<»0 

<M 

a-d£ 

adj%  pu'B  pog 

0-33 

punod 
J8d  ■jsoo  jb^oj, 

%-    •"*!     O     O     CN 

CO     1- 

OOOCOCOt--*U5Tt< 

O 

ft  <o    lO    ©    h 

o   r^ 

■<*<00lOCOiOCOi-l>O 

OS 

lOOCOOlC'*1-*'^ 

r^. 

ajot?  J9d  ppij^ 

^    N    N    (D    C\ 

co   o 

OiOOO-*CMOOCO 
TtllOlOtOCqNMM 

co 

CM    ■<*<    t—    CC 

t~» 

CM    t-h    O    OC 

r-  i> 

W^^OOWMH^I 

}SO0  I^OJ, 

o>  oi  n  a 

lO    ^t 

OOOcDNOOCOiJIH 

00 

e« 

t— 

CM 

asuadxa  aotjjo 

J3 

s» 

«/» 

^H     i-H     OS     ■* 

<M    i- 

coMoooHiose 

CO 

^uaui 

»o    I> 

iflijIMIONCONOO 

-^* 

rt 

-dmba  jo  asj} 

CO    ■*    CO    CO 

i-H     1C 

NHNNN^NN 

CO 

H 

e» 

CO     t~- 

^ 

t--    i-h    t-i    ir: 

>o    »- 

HNCOOOOOCOOOO 

cu 
o 

»    »    ffl    IC 

rtl    a- 

COlOCOCOCMCOCOCO 

OO    N    •* 

CO 

a; 

uoi^Sujj 

o 

CO 

CO 

©&    i-l    H 

SuuaAipp 

-h  r-  o   tji 

l^    CM 

lCCOCMOCO-*lOf~ 

CM 

o 

pu'B  Sui^nq 

CO 

'Sut^saAj'Bjj 

CO    11)    O    H 

CM    ■**< 

Tt<CM^HCMcMCMCMCM 

•» 

CO    O 

o>   lO   >o 

CO 

t-    CD    O     ON 

<M    -^ 

CO 

8JB0  89J jl 

CO    CM    O    i-H 
C»             »H 

~H     »C 

CO    i-l 

CO 

NT-"H 

(M 

OOCOt^t^-^1003 
OOOlOi-HOiCOCMOi 

CO 

O    O   lr^   ": 

K 

8jbo  pog 

CO    O    00    !>■ 

O 

»-H^HCOCO00O5'^t~- 

o 

«© 

OCOOSOi-Ht^i— ICM 
kOO-^C>l^i-HC<lt^ 

OO 

.  o  o  o  c 

CM     i- 

spuoui 

I«  jo  piaiA-  p^oj. 

oi    «    0_  N    O 

5  c»  to  to"  c» 

H    CM    i-l 

CO 

■^    CO             CO    CM    CM 

CM 

SpUOUIIB 

t^  os  o  o 

O    O 

O0"50t^-*»CO 

t. 

UI  « 

ajOB  jo  jaquin^; 

i-H                H     T)l 

i-H     CO 

■* 

•£& 

«8  ^    S 

%rG 

m   -g    SJ 

IS 

i-l    CM    CO    "# 

tn 

CO 

t^ 

CTj 

a- 

o 

CM    CO 

•* 

r2  J3    c3  •<*< 
■2    M   cS  rt 

o    «    > 

5  *«  5 


^       -5  .»  2 


Bul.  422] 


COST    OF    PRODUCING    ALMONDS    IN    CALIFORNIA 


45 


puu^s  JO 

! 

sS^ueojad 

CO    00 

oo  o   us 

C»    O    CTJ 

a^Bunxoiddy 

5<» 

So             O    <N    CM    CM    i- 

00    o 

o  o  o 

o 
>> 

Q 
pq 

e 

00         o   o  c 

00 

7  7  7 

00    CM    00 

•1? 

^>  oo         co   oo  o   oo  oc 

-*    us 

US     US     CO 

45  1- 

5^ 

cc 

fc,     CO                   Tt<      US      Tf<       T*      CC 

CM     ■>* 

■»*   o 

CO 

uX            CO    OO    00    o    oc 

us   oo 

CO    o    us 

o3 

.2 

w 

£  ^ 

■>*<    co    us    rt<    u- 

US 

"f      Tt< 

T3 

u 
03 

§ 

bb     i 

6 

* 

CO 

1— 

p;ph 

•2 

e 

MM            H^ 

PLh'O;" 

0 

.2 

p. 

-       ^Hfl^ 

ss 

\z 

0;*  fc    Q*  PlT  fL 

pC 

Q  Q  £  fc  £ 

0  HH 

ft 

|2 

i?  S5  £ 

ft 

c 

CO                                               CC 

t^                      CM 

00   us 

O  co  P 

-1                                     CO     " 

<M                 ^      -H 

W    P5    H 

CO  03  is 
®  g  co 

Mis  £ 

< 

„        •*    CO     O     *0        1           "        *"    O        1           •         "         ■        | 
M                               ^    O    OO             '""'    CO    O    US    ^ 

P" 

T3  S  A 

§UU9AIJ9p 

02     CO     O 

puB  Suiqnq 

0"= 

M    ■*    O    O!    ■* 

CO    CO    00 

o 

CO 

'Sut^saAj'Bji 

CM 

CM 

(uoi^Suji  §m 

i-H     O     i*     Cn     C 

. 

aafe 

-pnpin)  9xeo 

6  *■ 

CO    •»**    CO    OS    CN 

t^-    OO    CO 

OS 

M? 

99j^  puB  pog 

2 

rt   rt 

Cost  ] 
almor 
(cents 

punod 

eo  * 

©    O    CO    CM     CN 

KJ  ■*   o 

en 

co 

jad  ^sod  l^^ox 

o* 

OS    M    CO    lO    N 
t-    i-H     i-l    CM 

cm    u3^  us 

00 

en 

CM 

9J013  J9d  PI9IA 

H    IN    N    N    <» 
rt    IN             CC 

co   t^   oo 

CM 

CO 

C 

i— 1    t—    ■**    CO    •<* 

t^ 

CC 

Oi     O     ©     i-H     "■* 

O    US    00 

c» 

CO 

^SOO  p3}OJ, 

a 

CN 
«5 

co   co   ^h   cn   cc 

N    rt    W    rt    ■< 

M    CO    N 

CO   co   ■** 

c» 

OS 

^ 

o 

o   -*   oo 

o 

9SU9dX9  901JJO 

J3 

S» 

^ 

o  m      :   t^  oc 

us   -^   ^ti 
o    oo    t^ 

US 

^H 

^U9UI 

t^    us       :    CO    CO 

•~! 

cn 

u 
u 

-dmba  jo  9SQ 

CO 

^H                          CO 

H     CO     ^ 

CO 

CM 

CM    00    CO 

t^. 

c 

N    N    M    CC    « 

t^.    t^    CO 

a 

89XBJQ 

"* 

CM    CO    US    CO    <M 

n   n  o 

<N 

03 

*H 

^ 

o 

o  o  o 

00 

00 

V 

uoi^bSixij 

OS    us    Tji 

00 

CO 

1 

9& 

1-1 

&i 

SuuaAqgp 

o- 

•>*(    |-~    O    O     CN 

io  n  oo  ■*  a 

-H     CM    O 
M    N    N 

<N 

OO 

puis  Suqpiq 

r- 

CC    "O    U5    N    N 

05    CM    CO 

i+l 

'SUI^S9AJBJJ 

CM 

©& 

a 

co  o  o  ->*i  as 

us    CO    o 
CM    CO    O 

OO 

co  us   -<*<   us   t> 

t^ 

9JB0  99JX 

S 

o                        t-~ 

*     H     Ttl 

CO 

CO 

0» 

o  o  o  o  c 
co  us  o  o  u; 

O    us    o 

c 

CO     i-H     •<*< 

■* 

CM 

8JB0  pog 

c 

o  ni  »  n  io 

U5    IN    t- 

^ 

Si 

1—1 

CO 

^ 

oc 

.    CM 

CO   -^    Cn   co   •<* 

CO    US    00    OO    CC 

■*  oo  ■* 

CO    O    O 

en 

CO 

spaoui 

JV  JO  pptit  p^OJ, 

a- 

t--   co   t>-   co   a- 

■<jT    CM    US    CS 
CO 

e  in"  h 

CM 

CM 
US 

CO 

SpUOUip3 

<# 

O    us    O    US    00 

O    CO    00 

UI 

39JDB  jo  J9qtun^j 

US    CO    i— l    r~-    -^ 

US     CO     i-l 

oo 
co 

t3  §3 

^1S 

S-Q 

IS 

CM 

CO 

-*  u: 

CC 

N    00    O) 

O 

o   53   > 

3         S 


a    - 


>>  «   a    a 


w  3 

H    O 
ft    CD 


46 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


COMMENTS  ON  COSTS  OF  INDIVIDUAL  OECHAEDS 

A  study  of  the  tabulated  figures  for  each  of  the  149  orchards  shows 
a  wide  range  in  the  cost  of  caring  for  orchards.  The  average  cost  for 
handling  these  almond  orchards  in  1925  amounted  to  $46.60  an  acre, 
being  made  up  of : 


Soil  care 

Tree  care 

Irrigation 

Harvesting,  hulling,  and  delivering 

Taxes 

Use  of  equipment 

Office  expense 


$46.60 


Average  cost 
per  acre 

Average  cost  per 
pound  of  almonds 

$10.27 

$0.0246 

6.01 

.0143 

4.17 

.0100 

18.94 

.0454 

3.55 

.0085 

3.48 

.0083 

.18 

.0004 

$0.1115 


The  detailed  figures  of  each  orchard  also  indicate  a  wide  range  in 
yields,  in  costs  of  soil  and  tree  care,  in  costs  of  harvesting  and  pre- 
paring for  market,  and  as  a  consequence  in  costs  per  pound  of  nuts 
produced.  Yields  varied  from  15  to  1824  pounds  an  acre,  in  contrast 
with  an  average  of  418  pounds.  The  cost  of  soil  and  tree  care  varied 
from  $2.87  to  $76.13  an  acre :  harvesting,  hulling,  and  delivering 
varied  from  1.7  cents  to  65.2  cents  per  pound  of  nuts  produced. 

A  certain  amount  of  soil  and  tree  care  must  be  provided  so  long  as 
operations  can  be  financed,  whether  or  not  there  is  a  crop.  The  range 
in  these  items  is  considerable.  Low  costs  may  reflect  undue  neglect; 
high  costs  may  indicate  extravagance.  From  the  records,  the  lowest 
cost  (nil  per  acre)  for  soil  care  falls  to  orchard  No.  5  in  the  Yuba 
City-Live  Oak-Pennington  district:  the  highest  ($32.74  an  acre)  to 
orchard  No.  12  in  the  Banning  district.  For  the  149  orchards  the 
average  expended  for  soil  care  was  $10.27.  Eight  orchards  had  less 
than  half  this  average  expended  upon  them  for  soil  care. 

Similarly,  the  highest  cost  for  tree  care  ($67.13  an  acre)  was 
incurred  for  orchard  No.  2  in  the  Chico-Durham  district.  The  lowest 
was  nothing — reported  for  several  orchards.  The  average  for  tree 
care  for  all  orchards  amounted  to  $6.01  an  acre.  Fifty-two  orchards 
had  less  than  half  this  average  expended  upon  them. 

Taxes  varied  from  a  high  figure  of  $13.18  an  acre  (orchard  No.  2 
in  the  Banning  district)  to  a  low  of  $1.13  an  acre  (orchard  No.  1  in 
the  Paso  Robles  district). 


Bull  422]  CosT   OF   PRODUCING   ALMONDS   IN    CALIFORNIA  47 

Similarly,  the  range  for  use  of  equipment,  when  furnished  by  the 
orchard  operator,  ranged  from  a  high  figure  of  $18.96  an  acre 
(orchard  No.  6  in  the  Modesto  district)  to  a  low  of  24  cents  an  acre 
(orchard  No.  1  in  the  Modesto  district)  ;  for  office  expense,  from  a 
high  figure  of  $6  an  acre  (orchard  No.  3  in  the  Modesto  district)  to 
nothing  reported  for  95  orchards. 

The  average  cost  of  hulling,  harvesting,  and  delivering  was  4.54 
cents  a  pound  for  all  nuts  (1,911,488  pounds)  produced  on  the  4577.39 
acres  of  these  149  orchards,  yet  harvesting  costs  varied  as  follows : 

One  hundred  thirty-seven  orchards  (92  per  cent)  had  the  crop 
harvested  for  less  than  10  cents  a  pound,  and  70  of  these  orchards 
for  5  cents  or  less  a  pound.  Greater  economy  in  harvesting  on  certain 
orchards  seems  possible.  Unless  the  work  be  done  by  unpaid  family 
labor,  it  is  possible  that  the  crop  better  go  unharvested,  especially  if 
the  cost  of  such  harvesting  be  greater  than  the  selling  price  of  the 
almonds.  This  was  true  in  connection  with  the  harvesting  of  the  crop 
on  at  least  5  of  these  149  orchards. 

Studied  by  individual  orchards,  the  lowest  total  cost  per  pound 
(3.9  cents)  was  made  by  orchard  No.  14,  in  the  Arbuckle-College  City 
district,  producing  1040  pounds  per  acre;  the  highest  per-pound  cost 
($1.79)  by  orchard  No.  3,  in  the  Fair  Oaks  district  (producing  but 
15  pounds  per  acre)  ;  the  highest  per-acre  yield  (1824  pounds)  was 
made  by  orchard  No.  11,  in  the  Chico-Durham-Hamilton  City  district. 
The  lowest  yield  reported  was  nothing  (on  38  orchards,  cost  records 
for  which,  though  taken,  are  not  included  in  this  report). 


COMMENTS    AND    SUGGESTIONS 

NET  INCOME 

That  amount  of  net  income  which  growers  desire,  expect,  or  need 
from  their  efforts  to  produce  almonds  constitutes  a  starting  point  in 
discussing  these  cost  findings.  Net  income  is  the  sum  remaining  to 
reimburse  the  operator  after  deducting  from  his  gross  receipts  all  his 
actual  expenditures  for  operating  expenses  for  items  such  as  labor, 
seed,  feed,  materials,  repairs,  upkeep,  taxes,  insurance,  and  marketing 
expenses.  Net  income  is  the  sum  from  which  are  drawn  such  items  as 
(a)  family  living,  (&)  savings,  (c)  payment  of  interest  due  on  loans, 
(d)  repayment  of  principal  due  on  loans,  (e)  operator's  services, 
(/)  profits.  It  is  that  sum,  then,  which  if  made  available  to  a  grower 
will  satisfy  his  needs  (or  his  ideas  of  his  needs)  for  farming  opera- 
tions, for  meeting  obligations  in  connection  with  loans,  for  recompense 


48  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

for  time  and  effort,  and  for  the  use  of  money  invested.  Obviously, 
ideas  as  to  what  is  a  suitable  net  income  will  vary.  It  is  an  individual 
matter.  Most  growers,  however,  have  a  rather  well-defined  idea  as  to 
what  sums  they  require  to  care  for  their  families  properly  and  to 
carry  on  their  business.  This  sum  may  or  may  not  be  principally 
obtained  from  their  almond  orchards.  The  almond  orchard,  though, 
should  be  expected  to  contribute  its  proper  proportion. 

Factors  Affecting  Net  Income. — Net  income  is  affected  by  three 
important  factors:  (a)  yields,  (b)  prices  obtained  for  the  product  as 
it  leaves  the  farm,  (c)  expenditures  for  production. 

To  some  extent,  although  not  entirely,  all  three  factors  are  depend- 
ent upon  the  ability  of  the  operator.  This  constitutes  the  personal 
element.  Intelligent  knowledge  of  crop  needs  properly  coordinated 
with  practice  can  (1)  increase  yields,  (2)  enhance  quality  and  thereby 
affect  price,  and  (3)  introduce  economy  of  production  and  so  decrease 
costs.  Yet  production  to  a  considerable  extent  is  fixed  by  the  physical 
environment  of  soil,  moisture,  and  climate ;  prices  are  largely  deter- 
mined by  distance  to  and  receptivity  of  market,  as  well  as  factors  of 
supply  and  demand  beyond  the  control  of  the  individual  grower ; 
costs  of  production  are  affected  by  going  wages  for  help,  and  by 
market  prices  of  seed,  fertilizer,  sacks,  box  stock,  spray  materials,  feed, 
parts  and  repairs,  and  other  items  which  the  operator  must  purchase. 

Net  income  (measured  in  dollars)  results  from  yield  multiplied 
by  market  price  less  cost  of  production.  If  the  operator's  manual 
labor  is  included  in  cost  of  production  (and  it  has  been  in  various 
calculations  in  this  report),  the  required  net  income  can  be  reduced 
proportionately. 

Average  1925  Net  Income. — The  average  net  income  for  the  season 
of  1925  earned  by  these  149  orchards  is  low.  Based  upon  an  average 
yield  of  418  pounds,  an  average  cost  of  production  of  $46.60,  and  an 
average  price  of  18%  cents  a  pound  (returned  to  growers  by  the  Cali- 
fornia Almond  Growers  Exchange  for  the  eight  principal  varieties), 
the  average  net  income  amounted  to  $30.73.  This  sum  ($30.73)  does 
not  go  very  far  in  paying  interest  upon  investment  in  orchard  (or 
rent),  depreciation  of  orchard,  use  of  operating  capital,  and  manage- 
ment. As  a  result  of  the  1925  season,  41  orchards,  involving  28  per 
cent  of  the  acreage  studied,  did  not  have  an  income  sufficient  to  pay 
cost  of  production.  There  was  no  net  income  for  these  operators.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  best  orchard  in  each  district  produced  a  net  income 
varying  from  $65.76  to  $240.03  per  acre,  and  averaging  $134.95.  The 
basic  data  for  these  orchards  (table  19)  stress  the  importance  of  yield. 


Bul.  422] 


COST   OF   PRODUCING   ALMONDS   IN    CALIFORNIA 


49 


TABLE  19 

Summary  of  Best  Becord  in  Each  Group 


Record  No. 

Yield  per 
acre  of  nuts 

Cost  to 

produce 

per  pound 

Net  income  per  acre 
Basis:    I85  cents 
per  pound  of  nuts 

Pounds 

967 

889 

949 

1,433 

1,163 

833 

1,040 

1,057 

1,824 

1,778 

648 

Cents 
11.7 
7.7 
7.6 
5.5 
7.2 
5.2 
3.9 
6.2 
7.7 
5.0 
7.2 

$65.76 

Paso  Robles— No.  3 

96.01 

Oakley— No.  14 

103.44 

Oakdale— No.  6 

186.29 

131.42 

110.79 

151.84 

Orland— No.  4 

130.01 

195.99 

240  03 

72.88 

1,144 

6.8 

$134.95 

IMPORTANCE  OF  YIELD 

Yield  is  a  first  essential  in  obtaining  net  income,  since  without 
yield  there  can  be  no  returns,  and,  furthermore,  the  larger  the  yield 
the  less  is  the  cost  of  production  per  pound.  These  facts  are  indicated 
in  the  preceding  table.  As  one  studies  the  range  in  costs  of  produc- 
tion, from  both  the  per  acre  and  the  per  pound  bases,  it  is  very  evi- 
dent that  the  men  who  are  succeeding  are  those  who  manage  to  com- 
bine good  yields  with  economical  expenditures.  High  operating  costs 
are  liable  to  defeat  good  yields.  High  operating  costs  combined  with 
continuous  low  yields  for  any  orchard  doom  that  orchard.  Since  yield 
is  so  important,  attention  is  called  to  table  20. 


TABLE  20 

Classification  of  Orchards  According  to  Yield 


Average  yields  1925 

Number  of 
orchards 

Average  cost 
per  pound 

Acreage 

Per  cent  of 
acreage 

Less  than  250  lbs 

44 
43 
29 
19 
14 

Cents 

35.3 

14.6 

10.7 

9.8 

6.8 

1,755.35 

1,278.85 

803.98 

525.00 

214.00 

Per  cent 
38 

250  lbs.  to  500  lbs 

28 

500  lbs.  to  750  lbs 

18 

750  lbs.  to  1,000  lbs 

11 

1,000  lbs.  and  over 

5 

50 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


SEASONAL  VARIATION  IN  YIELDS 

Almond  yields  vary  from  season  to  season.  The  findings  of  a 
single  year  may  not  be  the  same  as  those  taken  over  a  term  of  years. 
No  orchard  should  be  condemned  on  a  single  year's  showing.  But 
mature  orchards  which  are  consistently  shy  bearers  and  for  which  no 
hope  of  improvement  may  be  expected  (either  by  regrafting,  better 
management,  manuring,  or  improved  culture)  may  as  well  be 
abandoned. 

To  show  the  range  in  yields  over  a  period  of  years,  table  21  cover- 
ing production  for  several  seasons  from  a  number  of  orchards  for 
which  yield  data  are  available,  has  been  prepared. 


TABLE  21 

Twenty-seven  Records  of  Yields  of  Almonds  Per  Acre  Over  a  Period 

of  Years 


Record 


Oakley  5 

Oakley  8 

Oakley  11 

Banning  2 

Banning  4 

Banning  8 

Banning  10 

Banning  11 

Paso  Robles  5.. 
Paso  Robles  6.. 
Paso  Robles  13. 

Oakdale  3 

Oakdale  4 

Oakdale  10 

Oakdale  13 

Modesto  1 

Modesto  2 

Modesto  3 

Modesto  4 

Winters  6 

Orland  7 

Yuba  10 

Yuba  12 

Chico  13 

Lodi  8 

Lodi  9 

Averages 


1925 


Pounds 

229 

253 

487 

558 

828 

649 

52 

463 

75 

62 

159 

550 

267 


695 
286 
645 
661 

46 
485 
600 
724 
586 

70 


416 


1924 


Pounds 
315 
637 
318 
561 
640 
654 


389 
342 
448 
126 


121 
121 

87 
1,256 
272 
608 
364 
166 
251 
262 
879 
446 
527 


447 


1923 


Pounds 
460 
367 
546 
834 
1,162 
649 
217 
451 
559 
553 
202 
228 
265 
304 
541 
476 
602 
821 
568 
568 
460 
1,000 
1,123 
1,137 
242 
481 


570 


1922 


Pounds 
164 
550 
393 
448 
660 

1,093 
483 
42 
79 
273 
319 
764 
997 

1,036 
248 
660 
882 

1,060 
364 
403 
133 
933 
975 
.  1,092 


1,226 


607 


1921 


Pounds 
245 
437 
304 
847 
1,452 
1,155 
547 
927 
291 
358 
249 
177 
447 
522 
149 
267 
736 
546 
180 
500 
255 
700 
310 
330 
66 
682 


487 


1920 


Pounds 
230 


341 
1,005 
696 
325 
251 
219 
252 
41 


501 

287 

968 

1,301 


1919 


Pounds 
303 


329 
391 
721 
765 

797 
237 
108 


258 

648 

309 

629 

283 
509 

436 
671 

No  crop 
204 

817 

72 

237 

969 

311 

1,046 


Not  averaged  on  account  of  numerous  missing  data. 


Bui,.  422]  C0ST   OF   PRODUCING   ALMONDS   IN    CALIFORNIA  51 


SUGGESTIONS   FOE   INCREASING  NET   INCOMES 

To  obtain  satisfactory  net  farm  incomes  from  almond  production 
under  California  conditions,  one  mnst : 

(1)  Strive  for  large  yields  by  use  of  proper  cultural  and  tree-care 
methods,  including  cover  crops,  spraying,  pruning,  and  other  practices 
needed  to  grow  and  care  for  an  almond  orchard. 

(2)  Practice  due  economy  in  expenditures  for  soil  and  tree  care, 
harvesting,  and  similar  expenditures. 

(3)  Hold  investments  in  equipment,  horses,  tractors,  automobiles, 
buildings,  implements,  and  machinery  to  a  minimum. 

(4)  Test  proposed  expenditures  for  equipment  to  determine  their 
economic  justification. 

(5)  Hold  annual  cost  for  use  of  equipment  down  to  a  minimum  by 
giving  proper  consideration  to  use,  upkeep,  and  protection. 

(6)  Grow  only  the  varieties  best  suited  to  market  demands  and 
local  environment. 

(7)  Strive  to  develop  maximum  quality  in  the  finished  product. 

It  may  be  feasible  for  California  almond  growers  to  concentrate  on 
fewer  and  better  varieties.  What  should  be  raised  rests,  to  a  large 
extent,  in  an  answer  to  the  question — what  does  the  consumer  demand  ? 
Is  it  size,  or  shape,  or  thinness  of  shell,  or  size  of  meat,  or  quality? 
If  the  answer  be  found  (and  its  determination  should  not  be  par- 
ticularly difficult),  growers  will  be  better  able  to  adjust  production 
and  demand,  or  else  the  consumer  should  be  educated  to  the  merits  of 
what  the  grower  has  to  offer. 

Regrafting  to  better  yielding  varieties  capable  of  bringing  higher 
market  prices  may  be  a  means  of  increasing  incomes.  The  California 
Almond  Growers  Exchange  lists  prices  for  50  varieties,  yet  the  great 
bulk  of  the  output  is  of  five  varieties.  Handling  small  quantities  of 
odd  varieties  is  expensive  to  both  producer  and  selling  organization. 


SUMMARY 

The  cost  of  producing  1,911,488  pounds  of  almonds  from  4577.39 
acres  of  orchard  on  149  California  farms,  in  1925,  amounted  to 
$213,119.17,  or  an  average  cost  of  11.15  cents  a  pound. 

Costs  as  figured  do  not  include  charges  for  management,  use  of 
operating  capital,  depreciation  of  trees,  or  interest  on  investment  in 
orchard  (land  or  trees). 


52  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Data  were  collected  from  eleven  groups  of  orchards,  in  thirteen 
commercially  producing  districts.  These  districts,  which  represent  the 
principal  almond  areas  of  the  state,  were  as  follows :  Banning,  Paso 
Robles,  Oakley,  Oakdale,  Modesto-Atwater-Livingston,  Winters- 
Esparto-Rumsey,  Arbuckle-College  City,  Orland,  Chico-Durham- 
Hamilton  City,  Yuba  City-Live  Oak-Pennington,  Lodi,  Fair  Oaks- 
Rio  Linda,  and  Terra  Bella. 

Costs  varied  as  between  orchard  and  orchard.  The  lowest  cost  was 
3.9  cents  per  pound  of  almonds  produced ;  the  highest  cost  was  $1.79 
per  pound. 

The  principal  varieties  represented  in  the  orchards  studied  were : 
I.X.L.,  Nonpareil,  Drake,  Ne  Plus  Ultra,  Texas,  and  Peerless. 

The  trees  ranged  in  age  from  5  to  40  years,  the  majority  of  the 
acreage  studied  being  between  10  and  15  years  old. 

Yield  appears  to  be  the  greatest  single  factor  affecting  net  income 
(and  hence  profits).  Thirty-eight  records  had  to  be  discarded  because 
no  yield  was  obtained.  Of  the  usable  records,  the  average  yield  for 
the  total  acreage  was  418  pounds  an  acre,  but  ranged  from  15  to  1824 
pounds  an  acre.  Sixty-two  per  cent  of  the  acreage  studied  produced 
(in  1925)  250  pounds  an  acre  or  more. 


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

This  study  was  made  possible  by  the  cooperation  of  the  California 
Almond  Growers  Exchange,  whose  officials  incited  the  work,  and 
whose  directors  unanimously  voted  a  substantial  cash  contribution  to 
assist  in  carrying  on  the  field  work.  Records  of  the  exchange  mate- 
rially assisted  in  the  collecting  and  analyzing  of  data.  Much  credit 
is  personally  due  to  T.  C.  Tucker,  manager  of  the  exchange,  and  to 
R.  H.  Taylor,  formerly  a  member  of  the  agricultural  department  of 
the  exchange,  who  gave  much  personal  assistance  in  formulating  and 
carrying  out  the  plan  of  study. 

The  field  work  was  largely  entrusted  to  W.  L.  Jackson  and  to 
Wm.  W.  Bedford. 

Although  the  objectives  of  the  work  are  primarily  to  help  growers 
of  almonds  to  a  better  understanding  of  their  business,  and  to  present 
data  which  can  aid  them  in  determining  marketing  policies,  the 
necessary  basic  data  could  not  have  been  obtained  had  it  not  been 
for  the  able  and  willing  cooperation  of  the  many  growers,  whose 
patience,  experience,  and  willingness  to  supply  data  made  possible 
the  assembling  of  the  necessary  facts. 

12m-5,'27 


